Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

NEW WRITS.

For the Borough of Poplar (South Poplar Division), in the room of David Morgan Adams, Esquire, deceased.

For the County of York, West Riding (Roth well Division), in the room of William Lunn, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-AMERICAN COLLABORATION (POST-WAR WORLD).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, arising out of the recent plea made by Mr. Appleby, American Under-Secretary for Agriculture, for Anglo-American collaboration in the post-war world, he will confer with the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers with a view to issuing a statement indicating the Government's attitude in this connection?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General has already made it clear in a public speech that His Majesty's Government fully approve of the recent plea from Mr. Appleby for Anglo-American collaboration in the post-war world. I do not think that I can profitably add anything ; this moment to what has already been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, who was speaking, of course, on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not vitally necessary to solve the problem of the primary producer, in this country, in America, and in the Dominions, before

the cessation of hostilities? Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the problem will not solve itself; and does he not appreciate the importance of dealing with these matters during the war, before peace is concluded?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend can be sure that not only I but the Government very much realise the work that has to be done.

Sir Herbert Williams: I take it that the Government realise that you cannot pay £3 a week to agricultural labourers unless you restrict imports after the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, UNOCCUPIED FRANCE (REPATRIATION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that safe conduct was given Italian ships in which Italians were enabled to return to Italy from Abyssinia, he will endeavour to secure from Italy and Germany similar safe conduct for a ship in which British nationals in unoccupied France may be able to return to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Eden: Arrangements were made some time ago to provide a ship for this purpose, but a safe conduct through the Mediterranean was refused by the German Government. Since then large numbers of British subjects have been repatriated from unoccupied France via Spain and Portugal. Of those who remain, the majority appear to be unwilling, for a variety of reasons, to leave France. Nevertheless, I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion in case a suitable opportunity occurs for putting it into effect.

Mr. Liddall: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, might I ask whether he is not aware that there are between 300 and 400 elderly Britishers in unoccupied France, the majority of whom are really anxious to get back to their dear ones in this country? Will he do everything possible to see that they are brought back?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, in the case of those who want to be brought back. We have brought back well over 1,000.

Mr. Liddall: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the names of such people, will he endeavour to get them across?

Mr. Eden: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — "GRAF SPEE" OFFICERS AND CREW, ARGENTINA.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause to be conveyed to the Government of the Argentine Republic the surprise felt by the Government and people of Great Britain at the Argentine Government's interpretation of the duties of a neutral in regard to the effective internment of the officers and crew of the former German battleship "Graf Spee"?

Mr. Eden: Steps have already been taken to inform the Argentine Government of the view taken in this country of their action and His Majesty's Ambassador at Buenos Aires is in constant touch with them regarding this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR HEAVY INDUSTRIES (INTERNATIONAL CONTROL).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the proposal recently made by the Archbishop of Canterbury that after the war the heavy industries of the Ruhr should be placed under international control, with a view to their being prevented from being used again for the purposes of aggressive warfare, will be carefully studied?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend may be assured that this and any other suggestions which may be put forward from time to time will be taken fully into account by those engaged in the study of post-war problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have in contemplation, as part of their post-war reconstruction plans, the establishment of an International Court of Justice, with compulsory jurisdiction to adjudicate upon differences which may arise amongst the peoples of the world and their rulers upon such questions as the interpretation of treaties, alliances, charters, revision of frontiers, and other similar international problems, as the preferable alternative to war?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

he has considered the recent speech by Mr. Cordell Hull; and whether His Majesty's Government supports the policy of an International Court of Justice, backed by an international police force.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are entirely in favour of the establishment, or re-establishment, after the war of an International Court of Justice, and have noted with much interest the references to this subject made by Mr. Cordell Hull in the course of his speech on 23rd July. The functions of such a court could not appropriately include certain of the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger).
As regards the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas), as I have made plain on previous occasions, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that international authority after this war will require to be backed by international force. In this respect also, we are in entire agreement with the United States Secretary of State.

Mr. Bellenger: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurances, might I ask whether any definite steps are being taken now, in conjunction with the United States, and perhaps with other countries, to implement the desires which he has just expressed?

Mr. Eden: These things are being examined and discussed, as I think my hon. Friend will realise from the public speeches which are being made on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to reestablish the International Court of Justice at the Hague?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will have observed that my language was guarded, of set purpose, on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Civil Aerodromes (Payment for Use).

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Air the basis of payment made by the Air Ministry" for the use of civil aerodromes during war-time; and by whom the ground maintenance staff at such aerodromes is paid?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The basis of payment for the use of civil aerodromes depends on whether the aerodrome is leased under a pre-war agreement or has been requisitioned, or is merely used for casual landings. In the first case, the payment for user and the method of remunerating the ground staff are laid down in the lease; in the second, the owner is compensated under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and the ground staff are paid directly by the Air Ministry or by the operating company; and in the third, casual landings are paid for by agreement or at standard rates prescribed in the aerodrome licence, remuneration of the ground staff being the concern of the owner.

Mr. Dugdale: Is not payment in the first place made on the basis of flying time, and is not that an encouragement to people to make unnecessary flights, in order to get more payments?

Sir A. Sinclair: In the first place, payment is made under the terms of the leases, No leases have been entered into during the war; we now proceed by requisitioning.

Mr. Dugdale: Is there no possibility of altering the terms of the leases in cases where they involve flying time?

Sir A. Sinclair: Alterations in the terms of the leases can be made only, of course, by agreement between the parties.

Confidential Reports.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will revert to the peace-time procedure whereby all annual confidential reports are initialled by the officer reported upon whether adverse or favourable?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. The war-time practice of showing officers their confidential reports only when they contain adverse comment has advantages over the peace-time practice and is in line with that adopted in the Army and in the Royal Navy.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does my right hon. Friend not think it would give great encouragement to junior officers if they could see the reports?

Sir A. Sinclair: The public interest, and the interest of the Service, make it necessary that these reports should contain

candid and realistic assessments of the officers' character and abilities, and this is best served by the present system.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Are adverse reports always shown to the officer concerned?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Air Training Corps.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement on the recent reorganisation of the Air Training Corps, and whether any further changes are contemplated?

Sir A. Sinclair: In order to simplify organisation and accelerate administration, the work hitherto done by the headquarters of the Corps has been transferred to the Air Ministry; and the Air Ministry now deals directly with the regional commandants and with the Commandant for Scotland. A post of Inspector of the Air Training Corps has been created, under the Air Member for Training, and is filled by the former Commandant. The post of Commandant lapses. The changes were introduced on 13th July. No further changes of a major character are in contemplation.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are made for newly-commissioned Air Training Corps officers without previous service experience to acquire administrative and disciplinary knowledge, either by attending short courses at Royal Air Force stations or otherwise?

Sir A. Sinclair: Officers appointed for duty with the Air Training Corps are encouraged to take short courses of instruction at R.A.F. units. Officers attending courses receive the pay of their substantive rank, and are provided with accommodation and rations, or are given allowances instead.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my noble Friend the Commandant for Scotland has organised local courses for officers, which have proved very successful? Will the same thing be done here?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir; it is a very good plan, and I am considering the possibility of extending it.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that instructions have been issued to certain Air Training Corps, London squadrons, that no church parades or instruction meetings are to be held on Sunday mornings in order that youths may be able to attend a place of worship with their parents; that the church attendance of youths with or without parents is confined to a small minority; whether the explanation accompanying the instruction is to be interpreted as an implicit order; whether he will make it clear that church parade or church attendance is entirely optional, not to be taken as part of the Air Training Corps course of training, and no disability or penalty will be suffered by non-attendance?

Sir A. Sinclair: Instructions were issued to all units of the Air Training Corps that from May to September inclusive two Sunday mornings a month should be kept free of normal A.T.C. parades. The purpose of the instructions is to enable cadets to worship with their families if they wish to do so. There is no obligation upon A.T.C. units to hold religious services or on cadets to attend them; nor is there any penalty for non-attendance. This should be clear to all concerned, but if any misunderstanding has arisen and my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the instance, I will consider whether any further instruction is necessary.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that those who do not choose to go to church can give their time to other work and other duties connected with the Air Training Corps; and is it quite clear that the insistence on religious observance is not part of the Air Training Corps scheme?

Sir A. Sinclair: I really think that my hon. Friend will find the answer to his question in the answer I have given. I said: "There is no obligation upon Air Training Corps units to hold religious services or on cadets to attend them."

Building Contracts.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air why, in placing contracts for several million pounds recently, the Builders' Emergency Organisation, set up by the Ministry of Works and Planning, has been ignored; why local builders were not given the opportunity to tender; and why the contracts were all given to a few

firms, such as Wimpey's and McAlpine's and their subsidiaries?

Sir A. Sinclair: The contracts to which I assume the hon. Member refers were placed after consultation with the Ministry of Works and Planning, who consult the Builders' Emergency Organisation whenever they think it appropriate. Of the 52 firms invited to submit tenders, 15 were local firms. Of the 22 contracts allotted, six were allotted to Wimpey and two to McAlpine. So far as I know, the 12 successful tenderers in the case of the remaining 14 contracts included no subsidiaries of these two firms.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these contracts were placed without the Builders' Emergency Organisation being consulted; and that in many areas local builders were not allowed to tender, and that they have a feeling that this policy, if persisted in, will drive them out of business?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. On these large contracts it is my duty to consult with the Ministry of Works and Planning, and it is for them to decide whether it is appropriate to consult the Builders' Emergency Organisation or not. In the case of smaller contracts, of £20,000 or less, which my officers have power to allot, we do consult the Builders' Emergency Organisation.

Mr. Lipson: Have the arrangements for the placing of these contracts the approval of the Ministry of Works and Planning?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes; I said that we consulted the Ministry of Works and Planning.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in placing contracts with a few large firms only, he is satisfied that he has carried out the undertaking given to this House some time ago that local builders would be given the opportunity for contracting in their area; and is he aware that many local builders are losing their employees to the larger contractors?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is not the general practice of the Air Ministry to place contracts with a few large firms only. When tenders are invited, every consideration is given to the claims of local firms capable of executing the work. If such firms submit satisfactory quotations they are


given contracts. The transfer and distribution of labour generally is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Sir D. Gunston: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases small firms, owing to the Ministry giving work to the large firms, lose their machinery and their men, who are very often transferred to the large firms and find that they have no work to do for many days?

Sir A. Sinclair: We are only anxious to get the work done, and we have to get it done at the lowest rate we can, but we have to choose the firm which we know has the power and the experience to enable it to get important work done in time for the operations for which it is required.

Mr. Leslie: Is it not a fact that many of these large firms have not the plant and that they commandeer it?

Mr. McKinlay: How does the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the cheapest contract that is possible?

Sir D. Gunston: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to receive a deputation on this matter, which is very important?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, I am always ready to discuss these matters with my hon. Friends.

Freight-Carrying Services.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he has taken any steps for the establishment of air services for urgent war freights;
(2) whether any steps have been taken to utilise air-freight services on suitable routes?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to both Questions is "Yes, Sir." Apart from transport services operated by the Royal Air Force, six freight-carrying services are at present operated from the United Kingdom by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, which also operates war transport services from other terminals.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Overseas Airways Corporation do not operate more than about 100 half-obsolete aircraft, and does this represent his conception of the importance of airfreight services at the present time?

sir A. Sinclair: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's description of the aircraft with which these services are operated, but we are doing our best to make the operation of these services as efficient as we can with the resources at our disposal.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can my right hon. Friend deny that the British Overseas Airways Corporation operate about 100 aircraft, a great proportion of which are obsolete, and, I repeat, does that represent his conception of the importance of these services?

Sir A. Sinclair: I neither deny nor confirm it, because all these services are war services, and it would be most unfortunate to discuss in this House the number of aircraft.

Northern Ireland Security Police.

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether all the secret and confidential documents were collected from the Northern Ireland Royal Air Force Security Police prior to their discharge, and whether he will order a public inquiry, with power to take evidence on oath, to be held into the whole question of their dismissal?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am advised that no secret or confidential documents were issued to these men who, in any event, were ordered to hand over all official documents when they were discharged. As regards the second part of the Question, the facts are well established and an inquiry would serve no useful purpose.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desire of these men for an inquiry, so that their case can be thoroughly investigated and the public may know exactly what is the position, as they do not understand the position of these men, and the matter ought to be cleared up?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that there is the slightest misunderstanding about the facts, which are perfectly well known.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION PREMISES (RENTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he will inquire


into the rents paid by aircraft firms for houses and other buildings which they have taken over; and where, as in the instance sent him by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, a rent of £550 a year is being paid for a house which the owner bought a few months ago for £2,000, will he have the rents revised to an amount considered reasonable by the district valuer?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): When we find that a contractor is paying an excessive rent, we take steps to ensure that only a fair rent is reflected in the contract price. I am, inquiring into the particular case mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipson: Would it not be possible to find out in the normal way that rent is being paid without considering the contract cost and asking them to have a check-up, as a great many of these excessive rents are being charged?

Colonel Llewellin: It only concerns my Department when we are paying any part of them, and when we are doing that, inquiries are made and it is not allowed, as I told my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say who is concerned, as ultimately the taxpayer has to pay this and the Departments apparently do not mind what rents they pay?

Colonel Llewellin: It sounds to me more like the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING OPERATIONS.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether, in view of the apparent slowness in completing many building and constructional operations now handled by civilian operatives, he will obtain information as to the time taken to complete similar work by the Pioneer Corps?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): The conditions of employment of the Pioneer Corps are so widely different from those of contractors' labour, it is difficult to see how a reasonable comparison can be made between the two

organisations. Any such comparison would be influenced by so many factors that it would be hardly worth while.

Mr. Bossom: Will my hon. Friend take cases where there is a comparison possible and then, if the Pioneer Corps work is done more quickly, see why the ordinary work is not done at the same speed?

Mr. Hicks: I have made inquiry as to the type of work upon which they are usually employed, and it varies so much that to try to compare it with contracts by civilian labour seems to be an unnecessary inquiry, which would not produce any sort of satisfactory answer, but I am willing to inquire if my hon. Friend will give me any special points.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPAIR WORK, WESTHAM, DORSET.

Mr. Barr: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning the grounds for issuing a licence for materials to rebuild a public-house at Westham, Dorset, while refusing to licence the rebuilding of a sub-post office and grocery store in the same place, although less materials were required for the latter?

Mr. Hicks: The Royal Adelaide Hotel suffered damage to one end of the building which affected the foundations and roof. A licence was issued on 25th February for the partial reinstatement of the building, the primary object being to permit the existing roof to be tied and to prevent gales lifting the roof and causing damage to the remainder of the building. The licence restricted the work to what was necessary to render the building safe. The cost of the work allowed was one-half of that proposed in the original application and less than one-third of the estimated value of the building. In the case of the grocery store and the sub-post office I understand that the damage to the premises was so extensive as to render it necessary for the authorities to condemn them as unsafe The application proposed the demolition and rebuilding of the whole premises at a cost in excess of the original value of the building. A licence was refused on 28th May in accordance with the usual policy of this Ministry not to permit the erection of new buildings unless they are considered necessary for essential war purposes.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is it not the case that a public house is an essential part of the community?

Mr. Hicks: I was going to reply that as my hon. Friend is a doctor, I would accept his advice upon it.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is not a sub-post office of more importance than a public house?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILINGS (REMOVAL).

Mr. Summers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether any distinction is drawn in the matter of the requisition of railings of private houses between houses occupied by the military and those not so occupied?

Mr. Hicks: No, Sir. The conditions governing the recovery of railings for scrap metal are the same in either case.

Mr. Summers: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the application of this instruction is carried out locally, because the contrary impression is given by the way it is done at present?

Mr. Hicks: If there is any evidence to the contrary, I shall be glad to see to it, but I can only repeat that railings required for security purposes will not be taken from private houses, whether in military or other occupation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING.

Protection (Gum Armament).

Mr. Windsor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with a view to giving greater protection to our merchant shipping, he will arrange for gun armament on the bows of such ships?

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): There are normally serious disadvantages in mounting the gun armament of a merchant ship in the forward position where it is exposed to the weather and sea, but when such a position is suitable a bow gun is sometimes fitted. Anti-aircraft weapons mounted near the bridge or aft are often capable of firing forward.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that American ships now being built are being provided with a gun in the

bow for offensive purposes, and is it not true to say that the reason why we are not arming our own vessels in this way is because of international law?

Mr. Hall: With regard to my hon. Friend's point about international law, I do not think so, because a large number of our vessels have guns fore and aft, or at any rate all the larger ships have them. It is only the smaller ships, where other difficulties and other considerations arise, that have not got them.

Mr. Windsor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very great demand, not only on the part of shipowners but by the men themselves, that an extension of this service should be pursued?

Mr. Hall: In this matter we are following advice of the experts who are advising us, and where it is possible in larger ships to put guns fore and aft they are put there.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that if a gun is put in the bow of a merchant ship, it cannot get into a neutral port?

Mr. Kirby: On a point of Order. About a fortnight ago, Mr. Speaker, I put down a Question on precisely the same subject, and it was refused by the Clerks at the Table on the grounds of security. A very elaborate explanation was made in writing on my Question Paper, presumably by the Admiralty, and I would like to know why, when I put a Question and it is rejected on the grounds of security, the same Question is allowed to be put two weeks later. May I say, in explanation, that this matter has been raised by my constituents, whom I have had to inform that the Question has been rejected on the grounds I have stated? It is very difficult for me to justify my position with my constituents when someone else is allowed to put a Question on the same subject.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will come and see me afterwards, I will try to understand what he wants.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply in connection with that point about international law, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Windsor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied


that ships travelling to war areas are receiving adequate protection and have proper protective equipment for defending themselves during air attacks?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. Weapons are provided in all ships for defence against air attack, and there is special provision for the protection of personnel. Ships moving in the more dangerous areas are given priority and special consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent convoy proceeding in a very important direction was denuded of Admiralty protection almost at the last minute and that a large number of vessels were lost?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter also on the Appropriation Bill.

Losses (Publication).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce a method, common to the United Nations, of notifying their shipping losses to the public?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No. Sir.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the American shipping losses are daily published in the American Press? In view of the fact that it is vitally important to stimulate public interest in this matter, can he say when the Government will be in a position to make an announcement on this important subject?

Mr. Attlee: I have already answered, "No, Sir."

Mr. Shinwell: Was not the reason for refusing to publish the shipping losses that His Majesty's Government were entering into negotiations with the American Government with a view to co-ordination and a joint statement?

Mr. Speaker: Sir Archibald Southby.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Appropriation Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

Women's Royal Naval Service.

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that accepted applicants for service in the Women's Royal Naval Service have to wait months for a medical examination; that this long wait is a waste of time and service to the war effort when some of these accepted applicants are turned down as not up to the medical standard required for this corps; and will he take steps to have the medical examinations carried out within a short period of the girl's application and thus obviate disappointment and delay of enrolment in some other service?

Mr. George Hall: Applicants for service in the W.R.N.S. undergo a medical examination which is carried out by civilian medical boards under the Ministry of Labour and National Service. These boards meet only at certain centres and only when there are sufficient candidates for interview and medical examination to justify their meeting. This means that there are occasionally unavoidable delays between the date on which the candidate is reported as available by the Ministry and the date of her being interviewed and medically examined. Generally speaking, however, the interval is a matter of days only.

Sir R. Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this particular case the girl was kept waiting for 11 months between the date of her application and acceptance and her medical examination?

Mr. Hall: There is no reason for such a very long delay as that, because the boards meet at an interval of a few weeks. If my hon, Friend will give me particulars of the case, I will look into it.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a girl was taken from the Island of Bute to Liverpool for an examination, was rejected and had to find her own way back home?

Discharged Men (Clothing Gratuity).

Sir H. Williams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a Croydon man serving in the Navy, on discharge from the Forces, was pro vided with 18s. only for the purpose of providing himself with a civilian outfit; and, as this sum cannot be sufficient, whether it will be increased at once?

Mr. George Hall: With certain exceptions, men discharged from the Navy are given a gratuity, at present of 18s., to assist them in providing themselves with plain clothes. I am aware that this gratuity has been criticised as inadequate and I am having the whole question carefully reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE BOY'S SENTENCE).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a 10 years old African boy was sentenced in Northern Rhodesia for a sexual offence to four years' detention in a reformatory and was sent about 1,000 miles to serve this sentence in the Transvaal, where he was handcuffed under the guard of a policeman; that the sight of this handcuffed child in the streets of Johannesburg has caused public concern; and whether he will at once take steps to amend the penal law of Northern Rhodesia so as to reform the treatment of juvenile offenders?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I was not aware of the incident described, but my hon. Friend has been good enough to supply me with certain information. The Governor of Northern Rhodesia is being asked to furnish particulars as to the alleged occurrence.

Mr. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this meant taking a native child from a Colony to a Dominion and that it was an additional penalty that he had to make a journey of 1,000 miles to a place of punishment? Will he take steps to see that a reformatory in the Colony is established?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. That is why I wanted to obtain accurate information, because, in general, juvenile delinquents in Northern Rhodesia are committed either to a separate section of the central prison or to a reformatory training school which is run under the auspices of the Salvation Army in Northern Rhodesia.

Major Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend say whether procedure such as that indicated in this case can ever be justified?

Mr. Macmillan: The first thing to find out is whether, in fact, it happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (COMPULSORY LABOUR PRODUCTS).

Mr. Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the essential undertakings on which compulsory labour may be employed under the Kenya compulsory labour ordinance; and how do the current prices of the products of these undertakings compare with prices in earlier years?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: According to the latest information available in the Colonial Office, 25 undertakings have so far been scheduled as essential, and I have arranged for copies of the relevant "Gazette" notices to be placed in the Library of the House. The list is a long one, and comparative price figures are in many instances not immediately available. I am obtaining them from the Governor and shall communicate them to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

Employment Conditions.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the labour troubles in Jamaica; and whether the trade union demand for an eight-hour day and increased wages from the West Indies Sugar Company has been conceded?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: My Noble Friend is aware that unemployment and the increased cost of living have given rise to certain difficulties in Jamaica which the Government are taking all possible steps to alleviate. No reports have been received of any labour troubles or of the demand referred to in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that an inquiry was made under the Defence Regulations? When will he have the result?

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was this company's factory which introduced the eight-hour shift basis in the Jamaican sugar industry over two years ago and that during its five years' existence it has not only increased wages considerably but has played a leading part in improving the conditions of the workers generally?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the progressive policy of this company.

Mr. Kirkwood: But is it not a fact that the general working conditions of these natives have been absolutely scandalous?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to employment conditions in the West Indies; and whether, as construction work upon the American bases is ending, alternative plans for re-employing these workers and/ or for recruitment in the Armed Forces have been made?

Mr. Macmillan: The approaching completion of work on the United States bases, together with the restriction of overseas trade, and the curtailment of internal trade consequent on petrol and rubber rationing, will produce a difficult situation in the near future. The Governments of the Colonies concerned are doing everything possible to meet these difficulties. Some relief will be afforded by increased local production of food crops; and schemes of development and of public utility, to be financed under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act or from local revenues, will be carried out as far as present conditions permit. Owing to shipping difficulties, it has not been possible to make plans for extending recruitment of West Indians for the Armed Forces. Local forces have been strengthened in some cases, but not, of course, as an unemployment measure.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of extreme urgency? Does he anticipate that the schemes to be undertaken will solve most of the unemployment?

Mr. Macmillan: I realise its importance and urgency, but the hon. Gentleman will realise the peculiar difficulties with which we are faced.

Mr. Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government Labour Department of Jamaica estimates the rise in the cost of living since the out break of war at 46 per cent. whilst the increase in the wages of Government employees awarded recently is 15 per cent.; whether this increase has yet been made; and whether it is intended promptly further to raise these wages to an equitable level?

Mr. Macmillan: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative.

The cost of living bonus has been paid since 1st April, 1942. The question of revising the bonus will no doubt be considered at the end of the financial year.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister recognise that these people's wages are still 31 per cent. below the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Benson: Are the wages paid by private employers comparable, or are they lower?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question concerning specific industries and cases, I will obtain the information.

Mr. Kirkwood: Have we not bled Jamaica white?

Mr. Adams: May I have an answer on the very important matter I raised—whether these people are to be kept waiting for months before they receive the rise to which they are entitled?

Food Supplies.

Mr. D. Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the serious situation as to nutrition and food supplies in the West Indies, he has a statement to make as to the active measures to be taken to combat the same; and whether plans for the storage of food have been made?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I welcome the opportunity of informing the House of the steps which have been and are being taken in this matter, but as the statement involved is lengthy, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Statement:

Since the spread of warlike operations to the Western hemisphere, constant attention has been given to the problem of maintaining supplies to the British Colonies in the Caribbean area. Many of them are very densely populated, and since their economic activities are largely devoted to producing for export sugar, oil, bauxite and other products very urgently in demand by other countries of the United Nations, they are to a large extent dependent on imported food supplies. The practical problems involved are very largely common to British and United States territories in this area, and they accordingly occupied a great deal of the attention of the Anglo-American Carib-


bean Commission at its first meeting held in Trinidad in March this year. That Commission made a number of recommendations which have since been followed up. In accordance with one of them, representatives of the Supply Offices in all the British and American territories in the area and of the British, American and Canadian authorities concerned in Washington and Ottawa were invited to a Conference in Jamaica in May. This Conference enabled further progress to be made in the organisation of supplies in the new conditions. Attention has been concentrated on—

(1) The most economic organisation of available shipping facilities.
(2) The reorganisation of methods of importation so as to provide full control.
(3) The increase of local production of foodstuffs and other necessities, and
(4) The control of prices and of the cost of living, and the introduction of rationing schemes where practicable.

(1) Shipping.

(a) As the great bulk of supplies involved are drawn from the North American continent, the British West Indian Colonies are mainly dependent upon United States and Canadian shipping. Progress has been made in devising joint arrangements to see that such shipping as is available is used most economically and that there is full co-ordination between United States, Canadian and Colonial shipping lines. Certain ships on the Jamaica register which were being partly employed for other purposes are now devoted solely to the provisioning of the Colonies.
(b) In order to secure the most effective use of schooners and other small sailing vessels which operate between the Colonies, a schooner pool under centralised control is being organised and His Majesty's Government have promised any financial support that may be needed in this. This local tonnage, including some small steamers, will be used for the distribution of supplies from central depots.
(c) Detailed arrangements have been made for the preparation of programmes and the allocation of priorities in order to secure that ships are loaded with the supplies most urgently required.

(2)Import organisation.

The importation of essential foodstuffs has been, or is being, taken over by the Colonial Governments so that orders may be placed in bulk. Such a system has been in operation in Jamaica since shortly after the beginning of the war. Orders in the United States are placed through the Colonial Supply Liaison Office which was established there last year, acting in cooperation with the British Food Mission and the United States Department of Agriculture. Orders in Canada are placed with commercial firms there, but arrangements have been made for the full coordination of Colonial orders. Within the Colonies, bulk supplies are distributed through established trade channels on lines broadly similar to those in this country.

(3)Increase of local production.

It has been the basic policy urged upon Colonial Governments from the very beginning of the war to increase local production of food to the maximum possible extent. In the West Indies, the possibilities have been limited because of the necessity of continuing the production of crops for export as determined by United Kingdom needs, and in some Colonies by shortage of labour owing to the diversion of labour to work on the United States bases. Nevertheless, a good deal has already been done. For example, in Barbados it has been made obligatory on sugar estate proprietors to cultivate a fixed proportion of their acreage in food crops; early this year that proportion was increased to 25 per cent., and a further increase is now in contemplation. In Jamaica considerable progress had already been made in the increase of local production of maize, beans and peas and other crops and in the local manufacture of margarine and edible fats and of condensed milk, with resultant economies in import requirements. Recent developments have resulted in further intensification of the drive towards increased local production, and the Minister of Food, while naturally anxious to maintain the very important supplies of sugar drawn by this country from the British West Indies, has agreed that if local circumstances demand it, the cultivation of food crops must have precedence over the cultivation of sugar. Action similar to that already taken in Barbados has therefore been authorised in


the Windward and Leeward Islands. In both Trinidad and British Guiana urgent consideration has been given to the extension of acreage under rice. In Jamaica, in addition to the measures already taken, the Governor has been directed to encourage as much as possible the diversion of land and labour previously devoted to the production of bananas to the production of other crops either for local consumption or export to the neighbouring islands. His Majesty's Government is already under obligation to finance the purchase of the banana crop at an estimated total liability of £1,400,000 per annum. The Governor has been given discretion to use this money to the maximum extent possible in the financing of schemes of production of other crops while continuing support of the banana industry to the extent necessary to prevent distress, provided that the total expenditure involved does not exceed the figure of £1,400,000 per annum.

(4) Price control, etc.

In all the Colonies concerned, the Governments control the prices of necessities, and in order to prevent further increases in the cost of living, they have been authorised, where necessary, to subsidise the prices of necessities by selling goods imported in bulk at a loss; where local resources are insufficient to meet the expense so involved, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider any necessary assistance, Individual rationing of foodstuffs has not so far been found practicable, as the administrative difficulties are much greater than in this country, but simple forms of rationing through retailers are already being adopted where local circumstances necessitate. Colonial Governments are being encouraged wherever possible to arrange for the storage of the maximum quantity of foodstuffs which they can manage, but in tropical conditions the period for which foods can be stored without deterioration is often comparatively short and at the present time shipping facilities do not in practice permit of the importation of much more than is necessary to meet current requirements, so that the building up of reserve stocks will take some time.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent food production committees have been set up in the West Indian Colonies;

how many such committees are now functioning; the foodstuffs which are being dealt with; and to what extent West Indian Colonial Governments are taking part in schemes for the increased production of rice?

Mr. Macmillan: I have no exact information as to whether food production committees have been appointed in all the West Indian Colonies or precisely what foodstuffs are being dealt with by such committees, but all the Governments concerned are taking very vigorous steps to promote better food production. The products to which attention is being paid are principally peas and beans, green vegetables, yams and sweet potatoes, maize and rice. The Governments of British Guiana and Trinidad have definite schemes in hand for the increase of rice production and the Government of Jamaica have been asked to consider the production of rice in that Colony. As regards British Guiana, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) on 24th June.

Mr. Riley: May we be quite sure that the Government in the respective Colonies are now initiating rice cultivation schemes?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. As I stated in my answer, we are pressing them forward. In Trinidad and British Guiana there are Government schemes, and there is one under consideration in Jamaica.

Mr. Sorensen: Is any report likely to be made as to progress in this direction?

Mr. Macmillan: I will do my best to provide a report if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question or give me some other opportunity; but, of course, we are dealing with these matters from day to day and there are telegrams all the time, so that it is difficult to know the particular moment up to which to make a report. I will look into the matter.

Welfare Schemes.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to issue a statement giving the number, nature and location of the welfare schemes commenced in the West Indies in connection with the Colonial Welfare and Development Act and set up under the direction of Sir Frank Stockdale's Commission?

Mr. Macmillan: As the reply includes a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Riley: Does the reply mean that we are now to have a list of the schemes which are actually in operation?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full answer to the hon. Member's Question.

Following is the answer:

The location and number of schemes made up to 30th June; 1942, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act in the West Indies are as follow:


Antigua
…
10


Barbados
…
1


British Guiana
…
12


British Honduras
…
2


Dominica
…
10


Grenada
…
6


Jamaica
…
11


Leeward Islands (Federal)
…
2


Montserrat
…
2


St. Kitts
…
5


St. Lucia
…
7


St. Vincent
…
6


Trinidad
…
1


Virgin Islands
…
1


West Indies—General
…
7




83

The above schemes fell into the following categories:



No. of Schemes.


Agriculture
21


Communications
11


Education
1


Fisheries
2


Forestry
3


Land Settlement (Reclamation)
1


Industrial Development (Public Utilities)
1


Medical, Public Health and Sanitary
26


Other Social Services (Welfare, Probation, etc.)
3


Telegrams, Telephones and Wireless (Broadcasting)
4


Veterinary
4


Water Supplies and Irrigation
6



83

In addition to the above schemes, the Comptroller has made a number of small grants, amounting to £1,600, including prizes to stimulate interest in practical handicrafts and for competitions among allotment holders and in schools, purchase of books for schools, libraries and literary clubs, etc. Generally speaking, these schemes are not administered by the Comptroller for Development and Welfare but by the Colonial Government concerned. As regards the functions of the Comptroller, I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply by my predecessor to a Question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 8th October, 1941.

Franchise Commissions.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Franchise Commissions in Trinidad and British Guiana have now completed their work; whether he can have a copy of the Commissioners' recommendations placed in the Library; and whether new constitutions, based upon the Franchise Commissions' Reports, will shortly be promulgated?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: No, Sir. The Commissions have not yet reported, and I wish to take this opportunity of explaining that the Commissions' terms of reference cover only the question of the franchise and not that of the whole constitution, either in Trinidad or in British Guiana. With regard to the last part of the Question, the constitution of Trinidad has already been amended, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission The necessary steps for an amendment of the constitution of British Guiana on similar lines should shortly be completed.

Mr. Riley: Does not the question of the new constitution for British Guiana depend upon the report of the Franchise Commission?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The amendments to the constitution are on the same lines as in Trinidad and just now they are awaiting final completion and the making of the final Orders in Council. That is quite separate from the franchise and the Franchise Commission.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the fact that this question has now been under consideration in British Guiana and Trinidad


for nearly two years, is it not about time that some progress was made in regard to the representation issue?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (RATES OF PAY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further report or information respecting the increase in the cost of living in West African Colonies both for Africans and Europeans; what further steps have been taken respecting the necessary adjustment of wages and salaries; whether he is satisfied that the remuneration of civil servants and Government employees has been adequately increased; and what machinery has been established to deal with industrial grievances?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Committee appointed to consider the adequacy of rates of pay of labour and of African Government servants in Lagos has now presented its report. It estimates the rise in the cost of living since the war at 47 per cent. No special investigation of the cost of living for Europeans has so far been considered necessary The Nigerian Government is understood to have published on 25th July a bonus award as a result of consideration of the Committee's recommendations. Particulars of the award are at present awaited. Awards on the basis of the Lagos awards, varying according to the estimated cost of living, have also been made in respect of places outside Lagos. As regards the third part of the Question, the West African Governments have shown themselves fully alive to the necessity of minimising as far as possible hardships arising from the increased cost of living.
As regards the last part of the Question, in all four West African Colonies legislation has been enacted providing for Government machinery to assist the settlement of industrial disputes although every endeavour is made by the Labour Departments to effect settlements between the parties without recourse to such machinery. The Labour Departments in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone have been strengthened, and the Government of Nigeria has recently decided to expand its Labour Inspectorate into a Labour Department. In the Gambia it has been

decided to appoint a full-time Labour Officer in place of the existing part-time Officer.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the increase in wages been commensurate with the increase in the cost of living, and is anything being done to see that the salaries of Europeans in that area are similarly
raised?

Mr. Macmillan: The award was made on the 25th, and we are now waiting for the complete details of the new wage schedules. If the hon. Gentleman will put another Question on the Order Paper a little later on, I shall be able to give him the exact figures of the award.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (EMPLOYEES).

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) the number of drivers of military age in the employ of the London Passenger Transport Board on the outbreak of war and the number of the reduction of omnibus services since that time;
(2) how many conductors, general workers, etc., of the London Passenger Transport Board of military age have been promoted to drivers and temporary drivers since the outbreak of war; and what period of training do they undergo;
(3) how many conductors, general workers, etc., of the London Passenger Transport Board of military age have been promoted to inspectors since the outbreak of war; and how many are reserved by being classed inspector-temporary-driver?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As the reply consists mainly of a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's consent, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Russell Thomas: May I ask my hon. Friend in view of the fact that many allegations have been sent to me that the London Passenger Transport Board with the blessing of the General Transport Workers' Union have classified conductors, inspectors and others as temporary


drivers—although they still continue in their duties as conductors and inspectors—thereby avoiding military service, if this is the reason the London Passenger Transport Board have not asked for the deferment of their conductors and inspectors?

—
Central Buses.
Country Buses and Coaches.
Trams and Trolley Buses.
Total


1. Number of Drivers of Military age employed at outbreak of war
4,331
1,374
2,081
7,786


2. Number of Conductors of Military Age promoted to Driver since outbreak of war
534
623
787
1,944


3. Average period of training of Conductors as Drivers
4 weeks
4 weeks
2 weeks
—


4. Number of Conductors of Military age promoted to Inspectors since outbreak of wax
53
15
34
102


5. Number reserved as Inspectors—Temporary Drivers
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

No general workers have been promoted to drivers and no general workers have been promoted to inspectors since the outbreak of war The number of motor omnibuses in the Central Bus services has been reduced by 833, and the number in the Country Bus and Coach services increased by 106 since the outbreak of war.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that it is necessary to maintain, in present circumstances, the Department of Overseas Trade in its present form; and whether he will consider reducing it to care and maintenance staff?

Mr. Attlee: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the staff of this Department considers that very extensive reductions could be made in the size of the personnel of that office, and as the staff itself thinks that, will not the Minister give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. Attlee: The staff has already been reduced from 423 to 123.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister consider the submission of the staff that 120 are

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would not accept any of the allegations made by the hon. Member or the implications involved in them. I think he would do well to study the figures and then raise the matter again if he feels so disposed.

Following are the figures:

grossly excessive for the work which that Department now has to do? Will he go into that matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OPERATIONS (AIRCRAFT).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that all aircraft taking part in naval operations do not at present belong to the Fleet Air Arm nor come under direct Admiralty control, the pilots of such Royal Air Force machines as may have to take part in those operations are given special training in naval strategy and tactics?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, this would be impossible.

Sir A. Southby: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that, in view of the specialised nature of the work which these pilots have to do, it would be better that the shore-based aircraft employed should be under the direction of the Admiralty?

Mr. Attlee: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is with regard to those aircraft taking part in naval operations. There are specialised aircraft and specially trained pilots to take part in naval operations, but there may be occasions when other aircraft have to be employed.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister consider whether it would not be desirable, in the light of experience during this war, that all aircraft taking part in naval operations should come under the direct control and direction of the Fleet Air Arm and the Admiralty?

Mr. Attlee: That is another question.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that divided controls of ships and land-based aircraft conducting operations of war have been, are now and must continue to be a grave handicap to efficiency?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not the case that any machine of the Royal Air Force may have to take part in naval operations and that therefore the suggestion contained in the Question is quite impracticable?

Mr. Attlee: That was the effect of my reply. Perhaps the other specific points that have been raised might be put on the Order Paper.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I have no option but to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Thorne: In view of the fact that there are now about 200 Notices of Motion for which no date has been fixed, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is not some way by which we can get rid of some of them?

Mr. Speaker: It is a question of the more the merrier.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are not these Notices of Motion an indication of the dissatisfaction of this House in regard to the conduct of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE AIMS.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is in complete agreement with the recent statements of war and peace aims made on behalf of the United States of America by Vice-President Wallace, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Winant, Mr. Acheson and Mr. Cordell Hull?

Mr. Attlee: A large and general measure of agreement exists between the two English-speaking democracies on fundamental principles and main objectives. There is also a great deal of harmony in language and expression.

Mr. Edwards: Is there any reason why the statements made by our representatives are always less intelligible than those made by American representatives?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION.

Tanks (Air Conditioning).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Production whether he can now make a statement on the comparative interior temperature at present of our tanks and those of the enemy in Egypt?

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Production whether he has taken steps to call into consultation scientists, representatives of air-conditioning and refrigerating machine makers both in this country and the United States of America and personnel who have driven tanks in desert warfare, with a view to the production of efficiently cooled tanks?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): As I stated on 8th July in reply to a Supplementary Question by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), examination of captured enemy tanks does not afford any evidence of any refrigeration in German tanks. The widespread belief that they are so equipped has probably arisen from a recent illustration in the daily Press purporting to show a refrigeration plant in a German tank. This illustration was a diagrammatic picture, not a photograph, and examination by experts from two of the leading refrigeration firms in this country, confirmed by the Design Department of the Ministry of Supply, shows that the scheme illustrated makes no contribution to the problem of cooling tanks. The installation of any kind of refrigeration or air-conditioning apparatus in a tank, desirable as it might be, raises serious problems of both space and weight. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Supply have set up a small Panel to obtain all possible information on air-conditioning equipment and its application to vehicles. This Panel includes scientists and refrigeration experts. The Tank


Design Department of the Ministry of Supply moreover maintains a section for physiological research in connection with tanks, composed of members lent by the Medical Research Council.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister state that there is absolutely no truth in the statement by the German Official News Agency that Rommel's tanks were fitted with refrigerator apparatus, and is there any truth in the reply given last September to an inventor by an officer who signed a letter on behalf of the Director of Armoured Fighting Forces, stating that a satisfactory method had been found for cooling our tanks which was better than the German method?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is confusing air-conditioning and ventilation., There is no evidence of any air-conditioning in German tanks.

Sir A. Knox: Are our tanks in Egypt as cool as the German tanks?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, so far as we know, but I could not give a precise answer to the question.

Captain Plugge: Is there any reason why we should wait for the Germans to cool their tanks before we cool our own?

Major Lyons: . Is the Minister aware that before this publication appeared in the Press there was a great deal of feeling that his Department had been inaccurately informed? Will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the gentlemen on this Panel, and will he include on it some people who have driven tanks in the desert?

Factory Building, Northern England.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Production whether he has considered the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife about the building of a factory associated with the Vestey interests in the North of England which will have no value so far as the war effort is concerned; and what steps does he propose taking in the matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The erection of the factory was authorised because it will produce a substitute for an important material, which is in short supply, and which is immediately required for essential war uses.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this represents a tentacle of that great Vestey monopoly, which is stretching out to take possession of a substitute already being produced by a small firm to which the Government refuse to give any support?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. That is not the case.

Rubber Supplies.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Production what steps are being taken to get all available supplies of crude rubber from Belgian Congo, Brazil and Bolivia, respectively?

Mr. Lyttelton: An agreement has been reached with the Belgian Colonial Ministry under which the United Kingdom Government is to purchase the rubber output of the Congo at a price which has been calculated to bring forward the maximum quantities available. The Belgian Colonial Government has established a Commission to administer and stimulate the production of plantation and wild rubber in the Congo, and steps have been taken to reopen abandoned plantations, to transfer labour from less essential industry and to publicise the need for the collection of wild rubber. The production of rubber in Brazil and Bolivia is being dealt with by the United States Government which has concluded an agreement, to spend five million dollars on developing rubber in the Amazon basin, to send a mission to develop rubber resources there, and to buy all Brazil's exportable surplus of rubber. The United States Government is also buying the total production of Bolivian rubber.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Wreckage Timber (Salvage).

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that one of His Majesty's Borstal institutions, the name of which has been communicated to him, applied last February to the local Timber Controller for permission to use some timber thrown up from wreckage on a neighbouring beach for use in building operations now in progress at the institution, but permission was refused; that the institution had to buy the timber elsewhere, involving extra haulage, intermediate profits and other


incidental charges, all adding to the price, and that the timber from wreckage is still on the beach rapidly deteriorating; and whether he will see that such an incident does not occur again?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. It is not practicable to allow timber to be salvaged and used without check on the spot. The institution were informed that a few pieces for urgent repairs might be available, but they did not pursue the matter. The timber, which has been washed up along a stretch of coast on which salvage is difficult, is not of a kind to suffer from exposure. The greater part has been salvaged by the agents of the Control, and the remainder is now being recovered.

Polyvinyl Chloride.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply whether his pronouncement that there was to be production in this country of substantial quantities of rubber-substitute material referred to the plant for the production of polyvinyl chloride?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

Reclaimed Rubber.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to secure the best technical advice concerning reclaimed rubber?

Sir A. Duncan: In addition to the Ministry of Supply's research organisation, a Committee consisting of representatives of the scrap rubber, reclaim and rubber fabricating industries advises on technical questions concerning reclaimed rubber. There is constant interchange of technical information between the Ministry and the corresponding Departments of the United States and Dominion Governments.

Fatal Accidents (Payment of Wages).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give an assurance that in future no regulations will remain in force which will, in the case of fatal accidents, restrict the payment of wages to the next-of-kin to half a day on the day the accident occurs?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

Miss Ward: In view of my right hon. Friend's ready acquiescence to my

request, will he see that other Government Departments know of this decision?

Sir A. Duncan: I will consider that.

Non-Ferrous Metals (Collection).

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give particulars of the collection organised to secure unnecessary articles of brass, copper and other non-ferrous metals; what part is operated by local authorities; and what steps are being taken to accelerate it?

Sir A. Duncan: There is a regular collection of salvage from householders by local authorities, and all local authorities with a population of over 10,000 and boroughs with a population of over 5,000 are under compulsory directions to provide or see provided an efficient service for the collection of non-ferrous metals. In addition, unwanted household brass and copper are bought by waste merchants and dealers.

Major Lyons: In view of the statement last week that the Minister's Department is anxious to collect unwanted brass plates and other non-ferrous metals, has my right hon. Friend anything to add to the old machinery whereby this can be put into effective operation?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. Active steps are being taken on the lines described in my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Ammon: What steps are being taken to collect the metals which have been left to accumulate in hundreds of towns?

Sir A. Duncan: I think there is some misapprehension on that. There are periodical recoveries, but, as storage in this country is wanted for so many purposes, it is often convenient to allow these accumulations to take place at points suitable for transport, and, so long as the supplies to the works are adequate, no loss is being suffered.

Mr. Ammon: Surely the Minister knows some local authorities are complaining that they cannot get the metal removed; The opinion is held that this is done deliberately to force down prices.

Sir A. Duncan: There is nothing at all in that suggestion.

Dispersal Scheme, Midlands (Unoccupied Houses).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the Government have provided 100 houses in connection with a dispersal scheme in the Midlands; that the expenditure has been between £70,000 and £80,000, and that only a small number of these houses are at present occupied owing to the reluctance of workers to move to new accommodation, resulting in a serious waste of petrol, tyres and time in providing omnibuses to take the workers to and from their original homes; and will he make arrangements to have these houses inhabited forthwith?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. Out of 100 houses, 62 are completed to date, of which 26 were completed within the last week. Twenty of the houses are already occupied. I do not anticipate any difficulty in filling the houses, whether by the workers affected by the original dispersal scheme or by the employees of other vital contractors.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware I have information that workers will not go to these houses, and does he intend allowing this state of affairs to continue?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the hon. Member has information that a great many of the workers are content to travel long distances rather than transfer their households, but no difficulty is anticipated at all in regard to the occupation of these houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

Ice Cream.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the protests of manufacturers against the proposal of his Department to stop the manufacture of ice cream on the grounds that it is unfair to deprive children of this delicacy whilst parents may buy strong drink without hindrance; and what answer he proposes to send in reply to their representations?

Viscountess Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will reconsider the decision to prohibit the manufacture of ice cream after the end of September, 1942, in view of the hardship inflicted by the Order on

many small traders who are in no way involved in the question of transport and labour?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): My Noble Friend has agreed to receive to-morrow a deputation from the ice cream industry, when full consideration will be given to the views of the industry on the proposal to prohibit the manufacture of ice cream after 30th September next.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman's Noble Friend ready to answer the question that these people put? Why should ice cream be abolished while strong drink may be bought?

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Ministry consider the food value of ice cream before taking any decision?

Distribution (Man-Power).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is a liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Labour and National Service to make certain that shops and warehouses are not denuded of man-and woman-power to such an extent as to make it difficult to distribute food stuffs?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. There is close liaison between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Labour and National Service, both at headquarters and locally, on all questions affecting the withdrawal of men and women from the food trades.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is already a real difficulty in staffing some shops, and will the Ministry take note of the fact that queues in shops are very often caused, not by a shortage of supply, but because the shops are denuded of skilled staff?

Mr. Mabane: I made that point myself yesterday, and it is true. There is great difficulty in staffing shops, but there is the closest liaison between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Labour and National Service on this very important matter.

Wheat Purchases, London Docks.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the grain in the £10,000 London docks wheat case was millable wheat; if the purchasers obtained their


supply as part of their ration for animal or poultry feeding; and, if not, whether the wheat or grain has now been confiscated?

Mr. Mabane: While it is probable that some part of the grain referred to was millable wheat, it would not be possible to identify any wheat now held by consumers with that which was the subject of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. Therefore the last part of the Question does not arise. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Walkden: No firm or person is entitled to purchase or to receive more than his fair share of any commodity from the common pool, and it is known that these people have actually received and purchased tons and tons of wheat. Many of the persons concerned are prominent in that area. Is it not a breach of the Defence Regulations, and is some action not going to be taken right away?

Mr. Mabane: This happened a very long time ago, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to identify the wheat, but, if the hon. Member has any particular information which would lead the Department to suppose that it could be identified, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Walkden: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible opportunity.

Milk Deliveries.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is proposed that the small milk retailer shall be restricted to delivery within a one-mile radius of his premises; and whether similar restrictions will be imposed upon deliveries of co-operative societies?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. It is for each local committee of dairymen which is preparing a scheme for rationalising milk deliveries, to devise whatever arrangements for economising in transport and man-power are most suitable to the circumstances of its area.

Bakery Trade.

Mr. Kendall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps he has taken to obtain the views of the family baker in relation to the question of subsidy?

Mr. Mabane: Negotiations have taken place with the National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers, and the Scottish Master Bakers' Association, and they have been given the fullest opportunity to state the views of their members. These bodies are fully representative of all bakers, including family bakers. There is no other organisation representative of the family baker with which my Department could have consulted.

Mr. Kendall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps he has taken to co-ordinate the family baker's equipment and knowledge with the British Restaurants, thus saving fuel, labour, equipment and foodstuffs?

Mr. Mabane: I am not clear what the hon. Member intends, but supplies of bakery products for consumption in British Restaurants are normally purchased from the bakery trade and local authorities and others providing meat pies and snacks for workers in rural areas are encouraged to make use of the facilities offered by local bakers for production and distribution. My Noble Friend does not, however, consider that the use of bakers' ovens for the provision of meals in British Restaurants can, generally speaking, be further developed owing to the greatly increased demands on bakers' staff and equipment under war conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINE AND SPIRIT STOCKS (DISPOSAL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the reasons for his Order No. 1271, dated 30th June, 1942, prohibiting the sale by auction of wines and spirits except under licence; whether he has considered the possibility that this Order may encourage the owners of stocks to dispose of them in such a way that they may reach the black market; and whether he will consider amending the Order so that holders of stocks who have ceased to hold excise licences shall be permitted to dispose of their stocks to licensed dealers otherwise than by auction in accord with normal practice?

Mr. Mabane: The intention of the Wine and Spirits (Prohibition of Auction Sales) Order, 1942, is to restrict the intrusion of adventurers into the wine and spirits


trade it is a condition of licences granted under the Order that an auctioneer may sell only to holders of an excise licence authorising them to sell wine or spirits by wholesale or by retail. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Order does not provide a means for the disposal of stocks to the black market, and it does not affect wine or spirits which are sold otherwise than by auction.

Mr. Kirby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that disposing of the stocks in the manner prescribed by the Order leads to this position, that one firm of auctioneers deal almost entirely with stocks for disposal in this way, and they get their rake-off irrespective of whether proper value is obtained for the goods or not?

Mr. Mabane: No. Sir.

HOLIDAYS AT HOME (APPEAL TO LANDOWNERS).

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Government have asked the public to avoid unnecessary travelling, and this year the majority of workers will be taking their holidays at home. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is anxious that, in the interests of production, workers should obtain the maximum benefit from the short holidays they will have at home, and it is important that ample facilities for outdoor recreation should be available within easy reach of industrial towns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are therefore appealing to owners of moor and mountain land and other suitable areas to allow the public to have reasonable access to their property wherever this is possible during the present holiday season. We feel sure that landowners will respond readily to this request. We hope too that holidaymakers will show their appreciation by taking special care not to do damage, for instance, to fences, walls or ditches, on property which they may be permitted to use for walking, cycling, camping or other recreational purpose, and in particular to avoid any damage to growing crops or to the harvest.

Mr. Mathers: Will the War Office be asked to co-operate as far as possible in this commendable effort?

Mr. Mander: In the event of access to mountains under the terms the right hon. Gentleman has suggested being unreasonably withheld, will he consider the possibility of using compulsory powers?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. We think this is a preferable procedure.

Mrs. Hardie: How is it possible to get from the industrial areas to the moors and mountains without travelling by train or coach?

Mr. Hudson: I hope by walking or cycling.

Mr. Shinwell: Why is the right hon. Gentleman reluctant to use compulsory powers? Does he not know that that is the declared policy of the Government?

Mr. Mathers: Will the Government take into account the possibility of co-operation by the War Office where that can be secured without causing difficulty?

Mr. Hudson: I am not quite clear what point the hon. Member has in mind. Perhaps he will drop me a note, and I. will see what can be done.

Sir R. W. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law of trespass in Scotland is quite different from that in England and that there has never been any difficulty in having access to rough ground for recreation?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Captain Plugge: On a point of Order. The Minister of Information has eight or nine questions all clustered at the end of the Question Paper. Could not something be done to give each Minister a break in his series of Questions, so that each Minister could answer some of his Questions in the earlier part of Question hour?

Mr. Speaker: The solution is for hon. Members not to ask so many supple-mentaries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about Business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have to inform the House that it will be necessary for the Government to


ask for an urgent Bill to be passed through all its stages on the First Sitting Day in the next series of Sittings before we proceed with other Business. I refer to the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill, which is expected to be received from another place during the course of to-day's Sitting. The Bill gives effect to an agreement recorded in Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States relating to jurisdiction over members of Military and Naval Forces of the United States of America. The agreement will in substance provide that criminal jurisdiction over American troops in this-country, including Northern Ireland, will be exercised by American military courts sitting here and not by our own criminal courts. There may be exceptions in cases where the American authorities ask our courts to deal with a case, and that is provided for in the Bill. Copies of the Bill are now available in the Vote Office for the convenience of Members. I feel sure that the House will realise the urgency for passing the Bill into law as early as possible.
On the Third Sitting Day, in addition to the Business already announced, we propose to ask the House to agree to Motions to approve the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order and the Coal Charges (Amendment) Order.

Mr. Silverman: Does the agreement with the United States refer to offences under military law committed by members of the United States Forces or to offences against the civil law?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the form of the agreement which is in the Bill.

Captain Strickland: Is this a reciprocal scheme under which similar facilities will be given to our Forces in America?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it would be better not to consider the merits of the Bill now.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will any facilities be given at an early date for a discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which makes grave allegations against the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall)?

Sir S. Cripps: The difficulty at the moment is that the evidence has not yet been printed or is not available. I do not think it would be wise to have any discussion until that evidence is available

Earl Winterton: Is it not undesirable that as soon as the evidence is printed this charge, whether right or wrong, should be hanging over an hon. Member of this House and the Ministry without a discussion? Could the Lord Privy Seal consider giving an undertaking that after the evidence is printed, possibly immediately we resume Business after the Recess, we should have a Debate? It is an important constitutional point.

Sir S. Cripps: It is clearly desirable it hon. Members wish it that there should be a Debate on this Report at an early stage, and the Government will take into consideration the desires of the House in the matter.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Have the Government decided not to have a Debate on the war situation before the House rises for the Recess?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not intended at present that the Prime Minister should make any statement on the war before the end of the present series of Sittings.

Mr. Ammon: Is there any intention of having a Debate on the nth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which raises important issues?

Sir S. Cripps: That matter is being considered, and there might be an opportunity to raise it on the Appropriation Bill.

Colonel Arthur Evans: In view of the many subjects that Members wish to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment, will the Government consider taking the first two Orders which the Lord Privy Seal mentioned at some other time in order to give Private Members the fullest opportunities? May I take this opportunity of saying that I am anxious to raise the question of visits of Congress Members of America to this country and of Members of Parliament to America?

Sir S. Cripps: The two Orders which I mentioned for the Third Sitting Day are for the Third Sitting Day of the present series and not the Third Sitting Day of the next series.

Colonel Evans: I beg pardon.

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask a question about the Debate to-day? It is of some help to Members to know at what stage in the Debate the Minister will speak. With regard to the Adjournment Motion, it is well known that the opportunities of Private Members are not now so numerous as in normal times. On the last Adjournment Debate Government speakers intervened, and I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether in the next Adjournment Debate he will see that no other business is taken except Questions, so that the day is left for Private Members?

Sir S. Cripps: In reply to the first question, it was anticipated or hoped that the Government speaker to-day, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, would be able to speak after five or six hours' Debate. That will not necessarily terminate the Debate. As regards the second Question, the question as to who speaks is one for Mr. Speaker. As far as the Government are concerned, they are always anxious that the Adjournment should be used to give Private Members opportunities to raise the points they desire to raise.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to give effect to an agreement recorded in Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America relating to jurisdiction over members of the military and naval forces of the United States of America." [United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill [Lords.]

That they have agreed to—

Allied Powers (War Service) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Admiralty under Section twenty of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, with respect to the grant and allocation of pensions and pecuniary benefits in the case of persons employed for the purposes of Greenwich Hospital, and otherwise to amend the said Section; to provide, on the death of any such persons, for the distribution without probate or other proof of title of sums not exceeding one hundred pounds due to those persons or to their legal personal representatives, and for purposes connected with the matters

aforesaid." [Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (VISITING FORCES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to impose military service on British subjects in foreign countries.)

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert:
In the event of any person covered by this Act failing to respond to a summons to perform national service he shall be liable, in addition to any penalties under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1941, to have his passport revoked, to be deprived of British nationality, to forfeit his assets in the United Kingdom to the Crown and to be treated as an enemy under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
The Attorney-General was good enough to say yesterday that he would sleep on this subject and be prepared to go into the substance of the matter again to-day. I have also given it midnight consideration, and there are a few comments I should like to make in elaboration of the arguments I put forward yesterday. I should like to call attention first to the passage in the speech of the Minister of Labour in which he said:
As far as our own country is concerned, as one of the biggest factors in the great United Nations effort, we feel that we should do all we can to utilise every man or woman who is a citizen to serve at this particular moment in this hour of great struggle.
That is a very important statement.
I believe that this Measure will be extremely popular abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1942; col. 442, Vol. 382.]

No doubt it will be popular if it achieves the object and intentions of the Government, but if it is found by countries overseas that in fact persons are not being brought in and that there is no power to bring them in, its popularity is likely to be only among those British subjects who are reluctant to come back here and serve their country and whom we are taking no steps to bring back. It did not seem to me that the attitude of the Attorney-General was nearly so bold as that of the Minister of Labour, because when the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the question of carrying out the objects of the Bill, he seemed to see nothing but difficulties. No doubt there are difficulties. We all meet difficulties every day and do our best to overcome them, and I feel sure that if it is considered worth while to carry out the provisions of this Measure means can be found of clearing out of the way those difficulties which present themselves.
I wish to refer first to the question of the deprivation of nationality. I imagine that not many citizens at present possessing British nationality are anxious to relinquish it. I think no nationality stands higher at the present time in the estimation of our own citizens and—apart from their own—of the citizens of other countries than. British nationality, and persons possessing the status of British subjects will think twice before taking any steps which would deprive them of it. Indeed I imagine that the only change of nationality which might appeal, in certain circumstances, to British subjects would be the change from British to United States citizenship, but that point does not arise in relation to the matter which we are considering. I should have thought therefore, that when a notice under this Measure was served on British citizens abroad, in some neutral country, they would either come back here in order to preserve their nationality, and for other reasons as well, or, if they had determined to remain for ever outside this country, that they would be prepared to lose their British nationality and accept that of the State in which they were living. Those two alternatives seem the most likely to be followed in the circumstances. There might, however, be a few who would have no nationality at all. The Attorney-General said yesterday that Stateless persons were a great nuisance and a great trouble to any country in


which they found themselves. They are undoubtedly a trouble in that respect, but the trouble is much greater for the individual citizens themselves than for the great State which may be involved. We must not therefore exaggerate this point. It is one of far greater importance to the individual concerned than to the State. I think there would be few cases of persons who would remain Stateless and, as for those who did, I think the matter is one which could be dealt with.
I pass to the suggestion that the assets of a man who failed to respond to his country's call should be forfeited to the State. The Attorney-General showed, I was glad to see, great enthusiasm for the carrying out of Liberal principles in the administration of justice and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. Nothing could be further from my intention than to suggest that a man should be deprived of any of his rights, except by due process of law. But I really think that in what he said the right hon. and learned Gentleman was conjuring up difficulties and obstacles in relation to this point. What I had in mind was something like this—that the British authority in the State concerned, whether the Ambassador or Consul, should take such steps as are usual in that country to send by registered post, or whatever the method might be, a notification to the individual concerned that he was being called up and that it should be made certain that the individual received the note. If after a certain passage of time he took no steps in the matter, a further legal notice should be sent to him, steps being taken once again, according to the usual practice of the country, to ensure that he received it, stating that if within the period of three months he took no action of any kind in the matter it was proposed to make an Order that his possessions would be forfeited to the State. If a man in those circumstances, knowing that he had been called to service over here, knowing that he would be deprived of his possessions if he did not respond, knowing that he had an opportunity of applying to the courts in opposition to the contemplated step, still did nothing at all, I should have thought that it was perfectly fair and reasonable to proceed with the Order forfeiting his assets to the State. Probably there is some much better method of procedure than that which I have outlined, but I think my right hon. and learned

Friend will see that what I am comtemplating is that legal process, in the appropriate form, should be employed to see that the man involved retains his full legal rights and that nothing should be done to him without giving him the opportunity of going to court and proving his case.
The last point to which I would refer is that which arises under the Trading with the Enemy Act. It is the case that British subjects abroad and British companies and corporations registered abroad are not prohibited from trading with the enemy, and British subjects can, and I have no doubt do, trade with the enemy. It does not seem a very sound state of affairs, and certainly in the circumstances arising out of this Bill I suggest that one possible sanction should be to see that activities of that kind are no longer open to the individual concerned. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give serious attention to these arguments. The whole object of my Amendment is to assist the Government in carrying out the purposes of the Measure. I am most anxious to see it not only passed but put into effect in every part of the world, and I hope the Government will take every step now and in the future to carry out the proposals which they are putting forward and do their best to overcome any obstacles which may exist at the present time.

Mr. Maxton: I hope that the Attorney-General will not listen to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I know that my hon. Friend is much more of a libertarian than I have ever been, but, in regard to this matter, he could not have gone very much further in the way of interference with the liberty, perhaps the wrong-headed liberty, of his fellow human beings unless he had proposed to add the death penalty to the other penalties suggested by him. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will maintain the present position so that the penalties applicable to a man in these circumstances will be those normally operated in the past by countries which have been in the habit of applying conscription over a period of years. Those penalties, I understand, are only applicable to a man if he returns to his own land and has an opportunity of appearing before his own courts.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand the view of my hon. Friend to be that while he is willing that compulsion should be applied to people in this country to join the Army, he does not want to have the same compulsion applied to British subjects to join the British Army if they happen to be living abroad?

Mr. Maxton: I hope the hon. Member is not under the impression that I wanted conscription applied in this country.

Mr. Mander: Mr. Mander rose—

Mr. Maxton: I will give way to my hon. Friend if he can show me any sentence of mine in which I have said that I approve of conscription.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend is saying that in applying conscription to those persons who are abroad, the ordinary processes of the law should be carried out, so surely the analogy is that he does approve of conscription when the persons are in this country.

Mr. Maxton: No. I am accepting the law of the land as it has been passed. There are penalties on people now, passed by Parliament—with my opposition, but passed, and now the law of the land. There are certain penalties that fall on British citizens who refuse to be conscripted, and I am quite satisfied that those penalties should also apply to persons abroad if they come within the jurisdiction of British courts. What I am not going to have is someone wandering round the Argentine, for example, and treating British citizens who have not come in response to a call as outcasts. That is what the hon. Member is asking for, that any such British citizen in a foreign land shall be put into the unenviable position of being neither a citizen of Great Britain nor a citizen of the country in which he resides. He wants to hold him up to every form of contempt and scorn and to make him a nationless person. In the course of the Debate on Second Reading I suggested that, having regard to the record of some nations, we might perhaps arrive at a time when a man without a nation would be the happiest of the whole lot, and I should have thought that anyone with libertarian ideas would have seen something in that. At the moment that is not the case, and all that I am standing for is that a man who refuses conscription

abroad should be subject to the penalties of the British courts if he comes within their jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have, as I promised, given consideration to the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I think that probably everybody feels the superficial attractiveness of his ideas, feels that if a British citizen will not come to the aid of his country in her hour of need it may be asked why he should retain the advantages of British nationality. But there are difficulties, both in, substance and procedure, in the way of accepting these suggestions. It may be noted in the first place that we do not apply these proposed penalties to anybody in this country who may be found, as some have been found, seeking deliberately to avoid military service. It has never been suggested that such persons should be deprived of their British nationality. Further, the proposal is impracticable because, under the constitutional arrangement which exists between us and the Dominions, the nationality law would have to be altered.
But there are still deeper objections than that. The two cases which we have to consider are these: One where the man who has evaded service comes to this country and you can proceed against him, and the other where he does not. If he comes to this country and we can proceed against him there seems to be no ground for applying to him any code different from that which we apply to people who commit the same type of offence here. If he does not come to this country, a priori we cannot proceed against him, there can be nothing in the nature of a trial. Some report may be received from a consul that he has sent the man a letter by registered post, but we cannot try a man in his absence and inflict penalties under the procedure which we have in this country, and we really cannot impose a penalty, which might be a very serious penalty, by administrative action after an investigation which could not have the thoroughness or the impartiality of an investigation in a court of law. I think that when my hon. Friend appreciates this he will realise that there are difficulties about all his proposals. The difficulty applies just as much to the


sequestration of assets as to the deprivation of citizenship.
With regard to trading with the enemy, it is open to me to suggest a further objection. The Trading with the Enemy Act has a certain definite purpose. It is to prevent trade and communication between persons in this country and persons in either enemy territory or in territory occupied by the enemy, and it really would not be fit to apply that Act to some particular individual in, say, a neutral or possibly an Allied country who was suspected of having committed a breach of the Order in Council made under this Measure. For those reasons the only way, so far as I can see, in which to proceed is the way which is embodied in the Bill, namely, that by Order in Council obligations will be imposed on these people, and if those obligations are disregarded, they will return to this country at their peril. If they return here they may have a warrant waiting for them on the quay, or may be proceeded against after they get here, and will find themselves subject to the same pains and penalties, if convicted, as people who have committed similar offences in this country.
As I said on the Second Reading, I admit that the sanction is not complete, but that applies to any provision of this kind. There may be people who never do intend to come back to this country. Well, then, nothing can be done. There might be some special arrangement with the particular country concerned, but all the suggestions made so far for extending the area of sanctions so as to have a possible sanction in every class of case are open to grave objections, and while sympathising with my hon. Friend's intentions and his desire to assist the enforcement of this Bill, I am afraid that the Government cannot recommend the Committee to accept suggestions on these lines.

Mr. Mander: I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been more sympathetic than he has. Will he go so far as to say that if in the course of the administration of this Measure it is found that grave difficulties are arising in any particular country, possibly scandal being created, by the fact that the Measure is not operative, as he admits himself that it may not be operative, he will then give further consideration to the matter and consider the advisability of bringing further proposals before Parliament?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, if difficulties, and still more so if scandals, arise and it is shown that there is some practical proposal which would enable them to be ended, the Government would, of course, reconsider the matter.

Mr. Mander: On the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from "Act," to "India," and to insert "of."
The object of the Amendment is to obtain a clearer explanation from the Government of the meaning of the somewhat mysterious words to which I call attention., I am aware that there is a colloquial use of the word "belonging," such as when one says, "I belong to Glasgow," but when the word is used as legal language, speaking of someone belonging to some Power, or person or State, it surely means a slave. In certain Axis countries the citizens might be said to belong to those countries. It is an unfortunate phrase, and I wish the Government could have found some other wording to convey what they have in mind. It would be a help to know who these persons are. Does the phrase refer to natives, who have a sort of subsidiary citizenship in the Dominions, or to persons in protected territories or to any other categories of persons who are not citizens or nationals? I believe that the Attorney-General was on the point of dealing with this matter yesterday, but, after giving a word or two about it, he was led on to another theme. I should like to hear a clear exposition from the Government of the meaning of these words.

The Attorney-General: The last, and I think, one or more of the earlier, of the Imperial Conferences, have considered the citizenship—if I may use a neutral term for the moment—of the different Dominions. South Africa has a Nationality Act. Canada has a Citizenship Act and I think also a Nationality Act. Australia and New Zealand have no such Acts. There is obviously, however, a sense in which a man is a citizen of Australia or of New Zealand, and circum-


stances arise, and this is one of them, in which it is necessary to have a solution of these matters. If a man is a citizen of Australia, the High Commissioner deals with him. If he is not a citizen, different results may follow, if he is domiciled or resident in the United Kingdom. Obviously, someone who was born in, and has lived all his life in, the United Kingdom belongs—to use that expression for the moment—to the United Kingdom, and a person who was born and has lived all his life in Australia, belongs to Australia. In the absence of a special citizenship law applying to all the Dominions, but all the individuals concerned being British subjects, the problem that has been discussed is about what phraseology you are to use when you want to speak of a citizen of Australia, there being no citizen of Australia in law. The question is how you are to deal with problems that arise.
This phrase, "belonging to" a Dominion, is not, I agree, a phrase of art, but it has been used in successive Imperial Conferences to express this conception. It occurs in the Bill in that way. We do not intend to seek to deal by our Orders in Council with individuals who properly belong to, say, Australia. The reason for that is obvious. Australia may desire to have its own conscription law and to apply that law to its citizens outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, we say, "We do not wish to deal with your people"—if I may put it in that way. I agree that, in regard to a Dominion where there is no such Act to which you can refer, there are borderline cases where you can say one thing or the other, but in the happy relations which exist between the Dominions and ourselves I do not think that individual cases have ever given rise to this difficulty, no doubt because of the man's representations on his own behalf and of the attitude of the respective Governments of the Dominions and ourselves. Although successive Imperial Conferences have failed to find a completely cut-and-dried solution of this problem, the problem has to be solved in practice, and these are the words which have been adopted in the past and understood in administration for defining what my hon. Friend may think more aptly describes citizens of Australia or New Zealand.

Mr. Harvey: Is this the first time that this phrase has been used in British legislation?.

The Attorney-General: I would not like to be categorical about that, but I think it will be found in the Defence Regulations, and it may be in an Act.

Earl Winterton: I have had an interest in this point in the past. Would it be appropriate to ask, and would it not be a good thing, for some international or Imperial committee of jurists to try to find a solution of this matter, which has given great difficulty in the past, of the designation of British Empire citizens and subjects? Could some undertaking be given on behalf of the Government that an attempt will be made to solve this question? It can never be solved by an Imperial Conference but only by a report by a body of experts.

The Attorney-General: I would not put myself forward as an expert, but there was a committee of legal advisers, before the last Imperial Conference, representing all the Dominion Governments, and over which I presided. It considered the question very carefully. There are certain difficulties, but we cannot go into them in detail now. It is a problem which continues to give difficulties and is not easy to solve.

Mr. Silverman: Is this Committee to understand from the Attorney-General that no inquiry has been made to see whether these words have been used before in British legislation? His answer was a little indeterminate and vague. When dealing with legislation which is completely unprecedented and uses words which everybody regards as not in the highest degree clear, I should have thought that some care might have been taken to see whether the words had been used before.

The Attorney-General: I agree that I ought to have informed myself. I am now told that the words will be found in the Military Training Act, 1939.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the Attorney-General's explanation, for which I am sure the Committee will be indebted to him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "Rhodesia," to the end of the Subsection.
In his speech on the Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour indicated that we would be asking the Committee for this Amendment, and he touched upon the reasons why we would do so. I will recapitulate and develop the argument of my right hon. Friend. He explained that, while the Bill was being drafted, this instance of Egypt loomed very largely in the minds of the draftsmen, and he went on to say that the conditions which were applicable in the case of Egypt would not necessarily be equally applicable in the case of other countries to which we might wish in the future to apply an Order in Council. I will try to explain to the Committee why this is so. Under the Bill as it stands, and if we leave in these words
no such Order relating to any country shall apply to any person who is a national of that country,
an Order in Council cannot apply to any British subject who is also a national of another country. So far as Egypt is concerned, this is an absolutely essential provision. Owing to our special relationship with Egypt under the Treaty, we are able to institute inside the country the actual physical machinery of compulsion. It would therefore be most improper for us to seek to bring under this machinery anyone who is an Egyptian national. Neither the Egyptian Government nor any other sovereign Government would tolerate such procedure for a moment, nor, I need hardly say, would His Majesty's Government seek to enforce it.
That is the position in Egypt, but when we come to other countries very different considerations arise. In countries where we do not have these relationships under Treaty there could be no question of applying, inside the country, the actual physical machinery of compulsion, and any sanction there might be under the Order in Council would be a sanction which would be applied in this country and not in the foreign country. Therefore, no question of a violation of sovereignty of a foreign country could arise through the application of the sanctions under the Order in Council. But in those countries we should find ourselves in this position if we kept these

words in the Bill: we should be prohibited from calling up possibly very considerable numbers of British subjects who were purely British, born of British parents and possibly educated in this country, who regarded themselves in every way as being of purely British origin, but who, owing perhaps to a technicality of the law of the country in which they were living, would have the nationality of that country as well. If we kept those words in the Bill we should be prohibited from calling up such British subjects, and I think it is quite clear that that would not be the wish of the Committee.
I have tried to explain as clearly as I can this perhaps rather complicated point, and I would just like to add this: If we adopt this procedure, leaving out those words, so far as Egypt is concerned the point would be covered by the Order in Council, so that there would be no question of infringing Egyptian sovereignty. So far as other countries are concerned, we leave our hands free to deal with the matter when it arises, according to the conditions which exist in one country or another. That is one point I should like to make to the Committee. The other is this. I think the Committee is aware that there is nothing at all exceptional in this procedure under the conscription laws, and I think almost every country which has conscription adopts the same procedure in relation to people of double nationality. Therefore, I think we can anticipate that there will be no difficulty as far as foreign countries are concerned if we follow suit. In view of the argument which I have put forward, I hope the Committee will be able to accept my Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Wing-Commander James: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, after "exercised," to insert:
or penalty for failure to perform any obligation imposed.
As this and the following Amendment hang together, perhaps it will meet the wishes of the Committee if I deal with them simultaneously. As the Minister made plain when he produced it, this Bill was primarily designed to deal with the situation in Egypt, and my contention is that it must have been very hastily drawn, for it is quite inadequate for covering the ground which will subsequently have to be covered by the Order in Council in respect of Foreign


countries. I seek to remedy some part of that effect by putting down these two Amendments. Their purpose is two-fold. The first is to supply in the Bill a sanction which at present is entirely lacking, and without which I do not see how the Bill can be made to operate in countries other than Egypt or, at all events, in some countries other than Egypt. The second purpose, quite frankly, is to seek to introduce a new principle, which I think it is very desirable to have. The Attorney-General told us that some countries and some Dominions have a definition of citizenship and that we have not. Personally I believe that the time is coming when, if our democracy is to Work, we shall have to have such a definition. The effect of these Amendments would be to provide a sanction against a very small number of people, very small because, as I emphasised yesterday, the overwhelming majority of British residents in foreign countries are the very cream of our people, and very few therefore would be affected.
A point which, however, has not been touched upon is this—What reliance is being placed upon the Consular lists to enable us to see what the extent of the problem is going to be? It is a subject with which I have some familiarity. In every European country there are persons who have obtained British nationality and British passports more or less accidentally. In most cases they are quite unknown to our authorities as British subjects until such time as they get into trouble and appeal for help. I therefore hope that one effect of the acceptance of my Amendments would be to hasten a reform which is very necessary, namely, a cleaning-up of our passport system. It is quite out of date, it has never been reformed, and it is open not only to serious abuses but to the greatest inconvenience. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept my Amendments, or, if not, that they will be able to introduce some analogous Amendment.

The Attorney-General: A certain amount of the arguments which my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward really arose and were dealt with under the first Amendment on the Paper to-day. With regard to his actual proposal, I quite appreciate his desire to raise, as a point,

the question as to whether we should have some conception of citizenship, distinct, as I gather, from that of nationality. Certainly at present no such conception is known to the law, and one could not introduce it by implication in a Bill of this character. Therefore I think that my hon. and gallant Friend probably regards his Amendments, not as practicable alterations to the Bill, but rather as raising a point. So far as the main question of penalties is concerned, I will not repeat to the Committee what I said on the earlier Amendment, nor the reasons which I gave for thinking that, as at present advised, we must and can only rely on the sanctions that if a person who fails to comply comes back to this country, he will be liable to be prosecuted in the same way as persons here. While that may not affect everybody—it may not affect people who have no intention of coming back to this country—it is a formidable sanction so far as many of the people are concerned, particularly in the younger age groups, for it is unlikely that they will never want to return to this country. While appreciating my hon. and gallant Friend's reasons I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

Wing-Commander James: May I ask how it is proposed to deal with those persons whose existence as British subjects is not known to the authorities and who may, at some subsequent date, come back without our knowing that they are there at all? How will that be dealt with?

The Attorney-General: If you do not know of somebody's existence, you cannot communicate with him. The intention to apply conscription to nationals abroad is, I quite agree, not one of those things which can be 100 per cent. efficient. To some extent there are bound to be gaps. There are fairly complete lists. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am told that there are fairly complete lists. We have to work on what we have got, and maybe we shall be able to get more information, if it is desired, as a result of applying an Order in Council here. But there will be gaps, and one perhaps will be that of a British subject living in the wilds somewhere who is not known to the authorities.

Wing-Commander James: In view of the explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): During the discussion on the Second Reading yesterday reference was made to Northern Ireland, and I am afraid I advised the Attorney-General incorrectly on the position of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan); the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) were interested in this point, and I am glad to see them in their places now. I desire to make the necessary correction. The position under the National Service Acts is that Irishmen in Great Britain are not liable to be called up for military service unless ordinarily resident in Great Britain. This means, broadly speaking, that they must have been residing here for more than two years. This applies both to Northern and Southern Irish people. That is the point where I fell into error yesterday. This is because Section 11 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, as amended by Section 9 of the Act of 1941, exempts nationals or citizens of any part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain and any person born or domiciled in any such part of His Majesty's dominions—that is dominion with a small "d." not a large" D."
Under the Bill we are now considering, Southern Irishmen in a foreign country will not be liable to be called up for service. That is because the proviso to Clause 1 (1) of the Bill excludes nationals or citizens of any Dominion—with a large "D"—and persons born or domiciled in any Dominion, and Eire is, of course, a Dominion. Northern Irishmen in a foreign country will be liable to be called up for military service under the Bill, because although Northern Ireland is a part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, it is not a Dominion. Actually, Northern Irishmen in a foreign country will only be made liable to be called up for military service if they are ordinarily resident in that country, that is, when they have been residing in the foreign country for more than two years.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure the Committee is obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation and correction. It

does leave us in rather a difficulty, because the Committee stage of the Bill is to-day, and, acting on the advice which the Attorney-General gave to the House yesterday, it was not necessary to do anything, but as it has turned out, that advice was mistaken. We get a very anomalous position as a result—a rather curious result—because it would appear that a man belonging to Northern Ireland will be under greater liabilities if he lives in a foreign country than he would be if he lived in Northern Ireland, and under greater liabilities than he would be under if he lived here.

Mr. McCorquodale: No, that is not so. I said that a Northern Irishman in a foreign country will only be made liable if he is ordinarily resident in that country. That is the position of Northern Irish people who live here.

Mr. Silverman: Then there is not really a greater liability in that respect, but they have a greater liability than if they stay at home. Therefore, though I was mistaken on one point, the position in fact does exist that under this Bill a man will be under greater liabilities if he lives in a foreign country than if he stays in Belfast. I do not know whether that ought to be so or not. I am not greatly interested in the matter, but I think the House might have had something to say about it and might have wished to consider, it had they known what was the result of the combined effect of the Military Service Acts and the Bill which we are now invited to pass, and might have wished to know whether the Government regard that position as satisfactory and whether they are proposing to consider it at a later stage.

Mr. Buchanan: I think I was the first to raise this matter. My Division is largely populated by people who come from that country, and I make no apology for representing them as citizens. May I say frankly to the Parliamentary Secretary that he has made a first-class explanation? He does not need to be worried about the mistake. He will make many more serious mistakes than the one he made last night before he has finished in his job. The position now, as I understand it, is that a person who is domiciled in Northern Ireland would, if he went to Egypt, need to reside there for two years before he became liable, which puts him exactly on a par with his


position if he was in Great Britain. That being so, I accept the position. My own view at the start was that he would be in a worse position than he would be if he came to Britain. I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's correction.

Mr. McKinlay: I intervened because I had the impression that there was a discrimination between labourers coming from Southern Ireland and labourers coming from the North. I still believe that a shuttle service can be created which will break the two years' continuity. I have never been able to understand how such a fighting race were ever excluded. It seems strange that there has to be special legislation to keep these men out of the fight. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not want to be in this one!"] I myself had some difficulty in dealing with a fairly large section of the building industry because of the position not being understood by the men. I am satisfied from the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation that they must at lease have two years' residence in the country before they will be liable to be called up. I do not want to prolong the discussion, though I could quote one case where a man was called up who was found to be medically unfit, but I will not pursue that.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: We in Northern Ireland fail to understand the logic of making British subjects in foreign countries liable for a calling up while British subjects in Northern Ireland are still outside the scope of conscription. Perhaps somebody will explain that on behalf of the Government. It is well known that the Prime Minister refuses to apply conscription to Northern Ireland, with the consent and agreement of the majority of Members of this House, although, of course, those Members who represent Northern Ireland here are anxious that Northern Ireland should be subject to conscription. I do not want to press the subject, but it is illogical from start to finish—

The Chairman: I am afraid I could not allow the hon. and gallant Member to press the subject. Possibly his speech might have been in Order on the Second Reading, although I am not quite sure about that. However, I have allowed him to ask the question, and I might allow a Minister to reply to it shortly.

Sir W. Allen: I am obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for allowing me to ask the question.

Colonel Stanley: I raised a small drafting point on the Second Reading, in connection with Clause 1, Sub-section (2, c). Could I have a reply?

The Attorney-General: The point made by my right hon. and gallant Friend was that under Clause 1, Sub-section (2, c), an Order in Council made under the Bill may provide
for the enlistment or enrolment of such persons in any of His Majesty's forces which may for the time being be present in that country.
He asked whether, as there was an express reference to such a position, it might not lead some courts to hold that an Order in Council could not be made under this Bill unless there was, in the country to which you were seeking to apply it, a force of ours in which men could be enrolled. I think that if my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Committee will follow the drafting of this Sub-section, they will see that that is not so. The Sub-section provides that the Order in Council
shall make provision for the manner in which any obligation thereby imposed, or any privilege or right exercisable in relation to any such obligation, is to be performed or exercised.
We put in the particular provisions specified because, if we impose an obligation and provide for a penalty, we must do so in specific terms. We were faced with the question of Egypt, where, under arrangement with the Egyptian Government, we were able to carry this procedure further than we might have been able to do in the absence of such arrangements. It was, therefore, thought right to provide that the Order may include, in addition, the detailed matters set out in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), for which we can provide in Egypt, in the exceptional circumstances, but for which we might not be able to provide elsewhere.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I only want to say that I do not think it right to trespass on your guidance and your generosity, Sir Dennis, in order to reply to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen).

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1942, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st July, be approved.
I think it would be to the convenience of the House if I dealt with both sets of Regulations—the Regulations which I have just moved and the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations—together. I would like your guidance, Sir, as to whether I would be able to do that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that the two sets of Regulations should be debated together. I have received Mr. Speaker's views on the matter, and I think that it is to the convenience of the House, and if the general assent of the House is given, there is no objection. In saying that, I should make reference to the Amendments which are on the Order Paper in regard to the Motion on the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act Regulations. If there is a general Debate on both Motions, the only Amendment which will be selected is that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—in line 5, to leave out "be approved," and to add,
cannot, in the absence of any specific assurance of further measures to be introduced in the next Session, be accepted as an adequate step towards meeting the difficulties of old age pensioners and widows "—
and that will be called formally at the conclusion of the Debate, for the purpose of decision, and of a Division if necessary.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is an Amendment in the names of the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) and West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and myself. I consider that a direct challenge, above any others on the Paper. Will that Amendment be called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, that Amendment will not be selected. The hon. Member will, of course, understand that in a general Debate on both these Motions he and his hon. Friends will be able to express their views on the particular matters dealt with in the Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I understand you to say, Sir, that you do not propose to call any Amendment during the Debate, not even the one you referred to, but that the Debate can range round the Motion, and that the Amendment can be referred to but not moved until the end of the Debate, when, if necessary, a Division can be taken?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have understood quite clearly the idea in my mind. But I should say that if and when this Amendment is moved, it would perhaps not be beyond the scope of my Ruling if a few explanatory words were said by the Mover. But that is all, as the general Debate would be regarded as giving sufficient opportunity for discussion of the merits of the Amendment. Except for a few words by the Mover, there would be no debate upon it. I might remind the right hon. Member that if an hon. or right hon. Member speaks in this Debate, he will have exhausted his right and be unable to move the Amendment. The Amendment will have to be moved by somebody who has not spoken in the general Debate.

Mr. Silverman: I do not desire for a moment to trespass on the function of the Chair in the selection of Amendments, but I would like to be clear on two points. Some of us very much desire an opportunity of dividing on one or more of these Amendments, The two points upon which I would like to be clear are these. If any of these Amendments are moved, will the form in which the Question is put from the Chair be, "That the words proposed to be left out"—that is to say, the words "be approved"—"stand part"? If that is so, it becomes a matter of less importance


to us which of the several Amendments are called. The original Question would be put in the same way whichever was called. The other question I would like to put is this. Supposing it should happen that the House, having consented to deal with the two Motions together, and then at the end of the Debate the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench should not in fact be moved, would the Chair then consider the possibility of calling one or the other of the other Amendments which have been passed over in favour of the one which you have indicated the Chair would select?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right in what he imagines would be the form of the Question put from the Chair on the Amendment being called. It would be an Amendment to leave out certain words, and the Question put to the House would be, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part." With regard to the other question of the hon. Member, the selection of Amendments, as he knows, is vested in the Chair, and in this case no doubt Mr. Speaker himself would be in the Chair, but I can tell the hon. Member that, whoever is in the Chair, the present intention is that no other Amendment except the one referred to will be called.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think I shall be betraying any confidence if I say that, as my name is attached to one of the other Amendments which is not to be selected, I took the trouble of trying to ascertain what was in Mr. Speaker's mind with regard to that, and I was informed that Mr. Speaker did not think that he could select the Amendment to which my name appears because he proposed to select the other Amendment, not at that time yet upon the Paper, in the name of my right hon. Friend. I rather thought that, if one Amendment was not to be called because another Amendment was going to be called, and if that other Amendment was not in fact moved, I might perhaps ask for the reconsideration by the Chair of the Amendment, which, after all, preceded it in time and on the Paper and was passed over in favour of the other one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member I am sure, will understand that when the

Chair is asked questions of this kind as to what is to happen in the course of Debates, the only answer can only express the then present intentions of the occupant of the Chair. I made it perfectly clear, and I do not myself think that that intention is very likely to be altered, but the hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that hon. Members are staking out their claims for an Amendment, I would say that our Amendment is a direct Amendment against the Motion, in which we demand 30s. a week for the old age pensioners. If any Amendment is called, I claim that it ought to be our Amendment, because we are going to divide the House against the Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has, I think, given an excellent illustration of the reason for this particular power of selection being vested in the Chair and also given an excellent illustration of reasons for what, as I have just explained, is the intention of the Chair.

Mr. Silverman: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), would the Chair bear in mind that, as far as I am concerned, I have no desire to compete? My own desires would be completely met by the calling of any of these Amendments, in view of the way in which the Question would have to be put from the Chair. If the Chair is in any difficulty in selecting other Amendments and if the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is not moved, may I remove that difficulty at once by saying that I personally will be completely content if that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) were called or if any Amendment were called?

Mr. Stephen: I was inclined to agree with the procedure suggested that we should have a general Debate on these two Motions, but, since I have heard the views of the Chair with regard to the Amendments, I am not disposed to agree now and would insist that the Motions should be taken separately. If the Motion on old age pensions is taken separately and the Amendment is moved in due course, then at least those of us who are anxious that there shall be some Amendment will in


that way be able to safeguard our position. Otherwise, I cannot see that the position of those who desire an Amendment will be safeguarded, and so I would insist that the Motions should be taken separately in order that an Amendment may be moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is raising just one of those points that were in my mind when I informed another hon. Member that the Chair could not do more than express its present intention. There may be good reasons, if the Amendment now referred to is not moved, to select another one. May I in these circumstances appeal to the hon. Member not to oppose what seems to be the general wish of the House and probably the most convenient course, and I am certain that Mr. Speaker himself will endeavour to meet the wishes of the House in order to get a decision upon these particular points? As far as I know, the likelihood of the selected Amendment not being moved is so slight that it is perhaps not a very practicable point. I think I can assure the hon. Member that, if that should be so and it is felt that some other Amendment should be moved, it will certainly be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Stephen: I myself am in the same position as my hon. Friend. The Amendment I would prefer would be that in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), but I want an Amendment, and in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am willing to withdraw my objection.

Mr. Silverman: If there were any substantial doubt, or if it were left speculative in any real, substantial degree that some Amendment would be before the House at the end of the Debate, I would support my hon. Friend in declining to agree that the Motions be taken together, but in view of what Mr. Deputy-Speaker has said I am content to leave it.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: With regard to the question of the Amendment on the Order Paper, you have just suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there is not much possibility of its being withdrawn. Supposing in the course of the discussion the Government make some statement to the House which will have the effect of enabling Members on the Opposition side to withdraw this Amendment or not to move it, or at all

events not to press it, may I ask whether there would be any opportunity for those who do not belong to any organised party to express their point of view in the Division Lobby on this Motion as such?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is rather an involved question and a hypothetical one to which I am not inclined to give a definite answer. The hon. Member must leave the matter in the hands of the Chair.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: The reason I asked the question was that I think it is important frm the point of view of some Members in this House who may not belong to any organised party. For example, we do not know whether there may not be an understanding between the Government and the Opposition with regard to this Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is just one of the matters which is constantly arising, and I can only advise the hon. Member to remain in his place throughout the Debate and see what happens.

Mr. Sloan: If the intention of moving the Amendment is only for the purpose of having it withdrawn at a later stage, will there be an opportunity for my hon. Friends and myself to have an Amendment moved?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So far as the hon. Member is making that inquiry, I have already fully answered it.

Mr. Ernest Brown: I am sure the House is grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will say only one or two words about unemployment assistance. The effect of the Regulations is that the scale rate for unemployment assistance will be increased by 2S. 6d. for adults and 1s. for a child. The numbers affected will be roughly 40,000 and the annual cost will be about £400,000 per annum.
Now as to the pensions Regulation. It is straightforward and simple and affects for their good at least 1,125,000 souls, at an estimated cost of £9,250,000 per annum. It is one of three new improvements suggested by the Assistance Board and adopted by the Government to meet the special difficulties of war-time. I mention the other two in passing, although they will take place by administration and do


not need a Regulation. The first is an extension of the period of winter allowances to the end of April and an increase of the amount to 2s. 6d. The second is a series of extra grants to meet special needs of clothing, bedding and other household supplies, and the House might like to know that the total annual cost of these three improvements is estimated to be £11,000,000. But the Regulation which the Government ask the House to approve to-day is concerned solely with an increase in the scale rate of 2s. 6d. for supplementary pensions for each person over 16 years of age, whose needs are taken into account, and 1s. for each child below that age. The House will see that the increase in the case of a married couple without dependants will be 5s. Members who were in the House in 1908 will realise that the cost of this increase will be about £2,500,000 a year more than the cost of the original old age pension of 5s., which was between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 per annum. We have come a long way since them; all parties have contributed to that move—

Mr. Kirkwood: Including the Liberal party?

Mr. Brown: The Liberal party were the originators and played a very big part. Although I do not want to be drawn into controversy, and will not be drawn, I would like to say that the balance-sheet would be interesting.
For the purposes of the records of the House—I know Members are glad to have a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because these ephemeral White Papers have a way of disappearing—I would like for the convenience of Members to give the House a comparison of the more important of the present effective rates and the proposed new rates. For a pensioner living alone the existing rate is 19s. 6d. a week, and the proposed rate will be 22s.; for two pensioners (husband and wife) one of whom is the householder the existing rate is 32s. a week and the proposed rate will be 37s.; for a pensioner who is a householder (but has no wife or husband) the existing rate for a man is 19s. 6d. and the proposed rate will be 22s., and for a woman the existing rate is 18s. 6d. and the proposed rate will be 21s.; for a pensioner living as a member of someone else's household, that is, a non-householder, the existing rate for a man is

13s. 6d., plus an addition for rent, and the proposed rate is 16s., plus an addition for rent, and for a woman the existing rate is 12s. 6d., plus an addition for rent, and the proposed rate is 15s., plus an addition for rent. Let me add that the rates for dependants of the pensioner who are 16 years of age or over are correspondingly increased by 2s. 6d., and the rates for dependants under 16 years of age by 1s.
I think that gives the House and the country a broad picture of the principal changes. So I sum up in this way. The Regulations do two things, subject to the variations in the table. First, they raise the rate for a supplementary pensioner living alone from 19s. 6d. to 22s. and, second, they make a corresponding increase in the rate for pensioners living as members of a household. This is done by increasing the special addition which has all along formed an element in the scale rates of such pensioners. It has been 1s. 6d. for those over 16 and 9d. for those under that age. It will in future be 4s. for adults, and 1s. 9d. for dependants under 16.
The improvements I have described have been decided upon by the Assistance Board and agreed to by the Government in order to meet certain war-time needs which were the subject of a recent Motion in the House. As I have several times told the House, in answer to Questions, the Assistance Board have been keeping a sympathetic eye on various war-time needs with a view to review if and when circumstances demand it. The House itself has several times called attention to certain differences and difficulties for our old friends in war-time shopping. There is on record a number of speeches by Members who have called attention to particular difficulties. Members in all parts have pointed out that they did not, in present circumstances, stress the cost of living especially as the Government at great cost had controlled the price of food, but that old age pensioners found it difficult to cope with the intricacies of rationing and were not always able as well as others to take advantage of available supplies of unrationed foods. The inequality of the movement of the prices of various items of household expenditure made it difficult for the Assistance Board to decide at what point they ought to act. But considering the whole of the facts


within their knowledge, they felt that action should now be taken so that the increases may take place before the summer is ended. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for a swift inquiry as a result of the Motion carried in the House recently he was able to report to his colleagues that an increase ought to be made, and the Government unitedly agreed to the Draft Regulations. I have no doubt that whatever are the views of Members on the long-term policy, these increases will be most welcome to the 1,125,000 now receiving supplementary pensions and to those old age pensioners who, because the level will have been raised, will now be able to apply for a supplementary pension with success. Any pensioners with resources who feel they could qualify under the new rates should apply as soon as the House—as I hope it will to-day—affirms this Regulation.
I would like now to say a few words about method. This, of course, involves a big administrative task. The simultaneous alteration of over 1,000,000 supplementary pension books, most of which are current for 26 weeks, is a big task. The Assistance Board tell me that they intend to send to every supplementary pensioner a notice asking him or her to return the supplementary pension book. For this purpose the pensioner will be given a franked envelope. Special stamps indicating the amount of the increase will be put on the outstanding orders and the book will be returned to the pensioner. In a proportion of cases the supplementary pension book will fall due to be renewed in the ordinary way at about the same time as the increase becomes due. In these cases the new books will have the full amount written in and there will be no stamps affixed. I mention this so that hon. Members may note it in talks with their constituents and so as to avoid unnecessary inquiry from pensioners who get books without the stamps and wonder why their books have not stamps whereas those of their neighbours have. The regulations will take effect, if approval is given to-day, on the pension pay-day in the week beginning 17th August.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend indicated earlier in his remarks that when the new Regulations are brought into effect, certain old age pensioners who do not now qualify

for supplementary pensions may possibly qualify. Would it be possible for the Assistance Board, in returning the books, to include some sort of leaflet so that the old age pensioners may have this explained to them?

Mr. Brown: I will discuss that with the Board, but I mention it now in this Debate, to which a great deal of attention will be given in the country, so that it may not be overlooked.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the Minister request the Assistance Board to look at all the "nil" determinations they have arrived at and which they now have in their files?

Mr. Brown: I cannot tie myself down to any particular method, but we will do our best to see that everything that the House wishes to do by these regulations which will mean alterations of the kind I have indicated is done, so that no old age pensioners may be deprived of any right that ought to be theirs.
I want now to say one or two general words. This regulation has, in conjunction with the other steps I have mentioned, the sole purpose of helping the old people to meet war-time needs. It has nothing to do with long-term policy. That is, as the House well knows, to be the subject of a comprehensive report by Sir William Beveridge on Social Security. This nation, in the last three decades, has been feeling its way, in measures of improvement to which all parties have contributed, towards a national social minimum. Whatever our parties may be, whether we have parties or have not, all of us have our views as to whether a national social minimum is now realisable, what its character ought to be, and what the amount should be. I think that to-day the House will want no misunderstanding on this outside the House. The fact is that all parties in the House are united in the desire to do the best possible for the old folk. Everybody wants to help them. In the meantime, in moving these Regulations, I ask the House to unite, as the Government are united, to take this single step in helping the old folk to meet the special difficulties to war-time, thus making the total estimated annual cost of pensions nearly £135,000,000.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister propose a Regulation to enable the old folk to meet the exigencies of the war?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member means by that the terms of his Amendment, the House may be interested to know that if that Amendment were carried, there would need to be a provision of an additional £425,000,000 a year.

Mr. Daggar: While I may make certain observations on which there will be disagreement, I should be very much surprised if there were not complete agreement in the House on the statement that we ought to endeavour to make it possible to end these recurring, and in some respects unpleasant, Debates on the question of making adequate provision for the aged people. We are making this issue the subject of nearly as many Acts of Parliament and Regulations as we did the subject of the condition of the unemployed men and women. I am convinced that it would not be impossible to achieve the object to which I have referred if we had the desire and the will to do so. To be continually discussing this question is not only unnecessary and regrettable, but also humiliating and undignified.
The original of the Regulations we are now discussing is not of the very remote past. The need is well known, although in my submission the Regulations fail to meet that need. As every hon. Member knows, the Regulations are the result of a Debate which took place on 17th June. They contain the proposals which were submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th June. On the day when the Chancellor made his announcement, we were obliged to listen to the distasteful proposal of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) that, instead of concerning ourselves with improving the conditions of old age pensioners, we should be busily employed in organising Darby and Joan clubs to relieve the loneliness of the aged people. That may be described as a canny Scot's contribution. On the following day, a very pertinent comment was made by a newspaper the contents of which do not always find agreement from hon. Members opposite—the "Daily Herald." In its editorial on the day following the brilliant suggestion of the hon. Member for Streatham, the "Daily Herald" pointed out that pensioners do not want to be treated as a picturesque but troublesome social surplus; they want to be treated as ordinary citizens; they do not want to be fussed over, they want to

live their own lives in conditions of economic justice. In my submission, clubs are no substitute for comfort. Comfort for old people can be appreciated only in their own homes. Only on one occasion since I have been a Member of the House have I had to listen to such an observation as that of the hon. Member to which I have referred. That was when an hon. Member suggested during a Debate on the conditions of the unemployed that unconsumed food in hotels and restaurants should be collected and distributed to the unemployed. My hope is that the hon. Member for Streatham, when he reaches pensionable age, will be obliged under the same conditions to join one of his suggested clubs, but I fear it will be another instance of the political quack who is afraid to accept an administrative dose of his own nostrum.
The Chancellor pointed out that there was difficulty in obtaining blankets, and that while grants would be made in cash, an exception would be made in that case. Blankets and Darby and Joan clubs are a poor substitute for justice to the old people. I pointed out during the Debate on 17th June that the Budget impositions affected the cost of living for these old folk. I do not know why exception was taken in some quarters to my reference to the cost of beer and tobacco. After all, we are not the people to suggest that the old people should spend money on food instead of tobacco and beer. I should be the last person in the world to suggest that these people are committing a sin or wrongfully using money in purchasing tobacco and beer. If an old age pensioner consumes 4 ozs. of tobacco per week, which is not an excessive amount, and a pint of beer every day for six days in the week, the increase in taxation means an additional 3s. 6d. per week. We are now offered this enormous sum of 5s., which leaves the pensioner with a paltry 1s. 6d. per week. I submit that that is meanness itself, and to apply a means test to proposals which are the embodiment of meanness is an achievement to which the Government are entitled to the credit they deserve. As I say, the pensioner will be better off by 1s. 6d., but according to Professor Bowley the index figure should be at least five points higher than at present calculated, and with that and the anticipated rise in the price of coal the whole of the 1s. 6d. will be absorbed.
We have always asked for an increase in pensions for these people when there is an increase in the cost of living, and we have never been able to secure any consideration until there has been a worsening of the conditions of the people for whom we plead. I submit that that is not to the credit of this House or of the nation. When I last addressed the House on this subject, the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Flight-Lieutenant Raikes) accused me of asking what a little bit more money mattered at a time when any amount of money was being spent for the war. I fully appreciate that wealth must be created before it can be distributed and the well-established economic fact that you cannot spend the same £ twice. What I stated then, and what I repeat again, because it is very relevant to our discussions, is that you will have great difficulty in convincing an old age pensioner that you cannot find money to increase his pension, when on the same day within three minutes before I spoke the Chancellor of the Exchequer was authorised to spend or find money amounting to £1,000,000,000. [Interruption.] I know what I am saying, and may I add that the Chancellor's supercilious flippancy in answering questions does not please me? We are debating to-day an advance of some £10,000,000 to these old people, and yet the House has never hesitated during the two years and nine months of war to add £5,000,000,000 to the National Debt.
It is only during war that we have been able to secure a move on behalf of the Government to pay supplementary pensions to the old people, but the same argument has always been put forward and it was put forward at the time of the original Act, when "The Times," in an editorial, making reference to the cost involved, said it was a very serious addition to the annual national Budget. There is an old Latin proverb which says that repetition is the mother of study, but I am afraid that repetition on the part of the Government is no excuse for not doing the right thing. You cannot give satisfaction and carry conviction with such an attitude, and no cleverly constructed sentences will solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman's resilience may help him, but it will not save him. I appreciate the Chancellor's difficulty. I admit that he has the duty to find the money to improve the lot of the old age pensioners, but it is the duty of the House

to help him. I claim that he will not render any assistance by paying individuals to inquire into the shortage of blankets and pots and pans in the homes of the old people. The persons engaged in such unpleasant work could be much better employed, especially during wartime.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is only what has been asked for.

Mr. Daggar: If the Minister will allow me to finish, I will make it clear why that has been asked for. I think one may be excused, and the old age pensioners may be excused, for explaining about the continued investigations, inquisitions, examinations, calculations and regulations. When some of us make reference to the cost of the Assistance Board we are never supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House who are always referring to the unnecessary hoards of officials, and yet this Board involves an expenditure of over £4,500,000 a year. The Board was established in 1935 to dole out assistance to the unemployed, and it is now charged, or so it is claimed, with the task of meeting the needs of the aged people. In the period from 1935 to 1940 this Board cost the nation £27,431,000. The Government know by now the requirements of old age pensioners, and I think it would be much better to scrap the Board, save the money, pay the people a decent pension and employ the officials on productive work.
Whenever we raise this question of old age pensions it is always thought that we have a disposition to exaggerate. Before the war the then Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, said that 90 per cent. of our old people managed to live without recourse to the rates, and it was only necessary for 10 per cent. to apply for public assistance. We pointed out that even that 10 per cent. meant that there were 307,800 of these people applying for public assistance and that, if it were not for the pride of the old age pensioners, many more would be applying. Directly the Supplementary Pensions Act came into operation it had to be admitted that our arguments were correct, because directly an opportunity was afforded the old people to apply for supplementary pensions instead of public assistance, the figure jumped to nearly a million, and there are more cases now


where these people rather than apply for supplementary pensions will endeavour to exist on the small pension of 10s.
In the last Debate I gave the budget of the single person, and also the case where husband and wife were receiving the pension. The expenditure in those two cases cannot be controverted. In the case of the single pensioner all that was allowed for meeting the necessary requirements of food and clothing was 7s. 1d. a week. In the case of the husband and wife the amount was 15s., which proves that approximately 7s. per week is available for the purchase of food and clothing in the case of persons who are entitled to the supplementary pension. Do hon. Members realise what can be purchased with 7s.? If you assume that each of them takes 28 meals in a week, the 7s. only permits of meals not exceeding 3d., with nothing left for clothing. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced these Regulations recently sent a message to the National Welfare Council in which he said:
We need the help of everyone throughout the country to maintain the home front and to see that we build up the citizens of the future on whose behalf we are fighting.
Those were noble sentiments and we agree with them. But these old age pensioners constitute a part of that home front, and you cannot maintain them on 3d. meals. It is not worth while to build up citizens in anticipation of providing them with such a rich diet. In any event, this House has reached a stage at which it becomes necessary to provide fair treatment for old age pensioners other than in terms of 3d. meals.
We also ask that something should be done for widows. Whatever strength there may be in the case that we are making for old age pensioners, there is considerably more to be said for the widows. The Government's refusal to deal with that problem is highly regrettable, because the widows have had no increase at all since the original Act was passed in 1935, although the cost of living has gone up 32 points. Since January, 1925, it has gone up more than a half. In addition—this is a strange feature of the case—if she has children to maintain, she gets 5s. for the first and 3s. for the second, as against 7s. 6d., 10s. 6d., and in some cases even 11s., for other children. Hon. Members

are aware of the varied arrangements for the provision of children. There are the children known as unaccompanied evacuees, children of unemployed persons, children of men in receipt of compensation, and children of air-raid victims, all of whom, with the exception of two classes, are in receipt of a higher scale of pension. While the widow's child has to be maintained on an allowance of 5s. or 3s., the others get varying amounts from 5s. to 11s. a week. The refusal to deal with the widows' case will long be remembered as a dereliction of duty. That assistance to these women requires legislation is not a valid excuse. Bills can be passed through the House in less than an hour if the nation demands and requires it. Something ought to be done for them immediately.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a long-term policy and said we should await the Beveridge Committee's Report, but that has no attraction for me. It is necessary to have regard to the recommendations of that Committee, particularly in view of the fact of the enormous amount of money required for the prosecution of the war, so that in the autumn, when we get the Committee's recommendations, no effective legislation can be introduced until about Christmas time, and, whatever might be said about the expenditure on the prosecution of the war now, obviously by Christmas time it will be considerably higher. If it is firmly believed that something can be done for these old people in the autumn, why not give them something now? Give them an instalment of what you propose to do for them in the autumn. I am afraid that whatever provision is made will be made at an appropriate time, and that is when the kiddies are enjoying Christmas presents. I make these observations because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Debate of 17th June, to which I have referred:
I would certainly say to the House that it would not be desirable to anticipate, or to duplicate, the work of the Committee in working out any long-term scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1942; col. 1649, Vol. 380.]
He was referring to the Beveridge Committee. Needless to say, if the proposals in the Regulations are either in anticipation or in duplication of what we are to expect from that Committee, I hope Sir William Beveridge will insist upon a long


holiday and thus delay the report by his Committee.
May I make one or two observations on the concessions with regard to winter allowances? I admit that the proposal will mean some advantage to the old age pensioner. At present the period covers 22 weeks from November to March and the allowance is 1s. 6d. for a person living alone and 2s. for a man and wife. Both payments will be increased under the Regulations. It is an advantage to have the period extended for a month, but, after all, it is not such an enormous advantage because the London County Council through its Public Assistance Committee already pays 3s. 6d. a week for the period from the beginning of October to the end of April. I want to stress now what I stressed on 17th June, that the payment of the winter allowances is an admission that the payments made to our old people are insufficient. A reasonable, adequate pension is preferable to these fiddling niggling arrangements in dealing with the problem. We consider that these Regulations are unsatisfactory. They do not meet the demand. They are meagre, mean and miserly, and this House should make a greater pension increase to our old people. The time has arrived when we should cease the continuous fiddling methods of dealing with old age pensions. It is not creditable to our reputation of being a great nation, and our agitation inside and outside the House will continue until we secure justice for those on whose behalf we make an appeal to-day, namely, the old age pensioners.

Mr. Willink: The draft Regulations which we are discussing to-day do not, as we have been told, amount to a change of policy. They are not put forward as a new departure. They are to be looked upon as a temporising measure, and it is from that point of view that I would consider them. It is only fair both to the Ministers and to the Assistance Board to remember what it was the House called attention to in the last Debate and what was the undertaking given. The House recognised that the difficulties of old age pensioners and widows had been accentuated by wartime conditions, and it called upon the Government to make an immediate examination with a view to early action. These draft Regulations and the variations in practice which have been announced are the response to the accept-

ance by the House of the Motion which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). It is my honest belief that the Government are to be congratulated, first, on the speed with which they have reacted to that Motion, and, second, on the remedial steps which they propose. Action is not always so speedy, and we should note with satisfaction that it was within a month of that Debate that the Government's proposals were announced. That reflects credit not only on the Ministers, but on the Assistance Board, who have obviously given close thought to this matter and, I feel, have put before the Government satisfactory proposals.
To-day, when only 17 Sitting Days have run since a long Debate, with the Rule suspended, the House is devoting most of another day to this question. Except from one point of view, which I shall mention at the close of my observations, I regret that this time is being spent. There are other far more urgent matters on which we might profitably be spending our time. There is, however, one reason for which I am glad that we are having this discussion to-day.
Furthermore, I hope that none of the Amendments on the Order Paper will be pressed to a Division. In these difficult days, difficult particularly from the point of view of the supply and availability of consumer goods—and that is a matter which is most relevant in this connection—we all want to do the best possible for the old people. I should like the impression to go out to the country that this House, having fully discussed these difficulties on two occasions, have reached, of course as a compromise, a basis of agreement as to what was best. It is from this point of view that I particularly regret that only to-day an Amendment appeared on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It did not appear for 12 days after the Chancellor's statement. That statement was followed by a Supplementary Question which elicited the reply that the proposals had the unanimous support of the Cabinet. My own feeling is that to put down a Motion condemning, except under certain conditions, proposals agreed to by the Leader of the party opposite and of the members of


that party in the Government savours of party politics. From another point of view I regret the general line of the proposal, because it asks for further steps, and, therefore, I suppose another Debate within a short time on this specific subject, when we have been told that Sir William Beveridge's Report is expected at an early date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery has called attention forcibly to certain of the illogicalities and irregularities, particularly in regard to children. We must not at this stage run risks of perpetuating and enlarging those irregularities. All of us who have given even the slightest consideration to these various remedial measures for poverty and insecurity of all kinds are baffled by the untidiness of them and the irregularities. They have just grown up in the most untidy way, and that makes it extremely difficult to follow them. I understand there is hope that large measures of economy will be possible in administration in various directions, and I think it would be disastrous that there should be any sort of pledge that this particular isolated part of the problem should be dealt with on the lines of one instalment to-day and another instalment in a few weeks.
Let me say a word or two about the remedial proposals in the Regulations and the amended practice, and deal first with the increase in the scale rate. I imagine there is no doubt that it is fair to take away from those figures, 19s. 6d. and 22s., what I have understood is the normal rent allowance included, that is 5s. for a single person. If it is more than that he gets more than the 19s. 6d. So it is fair to take off 5s. from each of those figures, and the real difference is between 14s. 6d. and 17s. in that particular case. If one looks at the various increases one finds that on that basis, which I hope and believe is fair, the increase varies between 17 and 20 per cent. right through. As a temporising measure I venture to think that that is a fair and proper basis at the present stage. Then there is the maatter of the winter allowances. There is no doubt that here we have taken two steps in the direction of sound common sense. First, there is very little more fuel consumed by a married couple than by a single old person. Secondly, the exten-

sion of the month is quite obviously right. Of course the fuel allowance is not intended to cover all the fuel in the winter; it is an added allowance to that element which is included in the general allowance throughout the whole year.
The third matter is one which was commented upon most adversely by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery, and that is the arrangement under which, where there is reason to think that old people are suffering by reason of the difficulty of buying clothing or household equipment—he mentioned pots and pans—they are visited by officers of the Assistance Board to see whether the anxiety or apprehension as to the condition of the old people is justified or not. I really do not quite understand the description of that kindly action as unpleasant work. It seems to me wholly appropriate. Having had some contact with poverty, not only accentuated by war conditions but accentuated by conditions of bombing, I say that one of the greatest difficulties is the buying of necessary things. The pots and pans mentioned by my hon. Friend are the most conspicuous example of all. Blankets are the subject of the fourth remedial measure. Contemptuous words were used of the arrangements which are to be made for the provision of blankets in kind. There, too, I have a little personal experience, because the difficulty of getting blankets arose a long time ago. The A.R.P. services were most inadequately provided with blankets for many months, through the difficulty of getting supplies, and I am sure the wisest possible step is to have a bulk provision of blankets and in proper cases distribute them, because I cannot believe that it would be at all easy for old people needing blankets to find them.
There is one other general observation I wish to make. I may be deceived, I may be deceiving myself, but what I am going to say is based upon scores of conversations with old people. The difficulties which they have expressed to me are not so much difficulties arising from the amount of cash at their disposal, but the difficulty first of finding useful things to buy at a reasonable price, and secondly, the difficulty, which is outside the purview of this Debate, of finding satisfactory little places in which to live. The housing arrangements in our cities are badly devised, in the main, in the matter of providing small homes for old


people—one-room homes or two-room homes, and I hope that this matter will be very much thought of in connection with reconstruction. We have made attempts to deal with the situation under the force of necessity, and extraordinarily good work has been done, for example, by voluntary housing associations, but I am sure that one of the greatest burdens under which our old people suffer is that our houses are extremely badly devised for their comfort. Somebody asks "Whose fault is it?" I have not noticed that municipal authorities have been much better in this respect than private enterprise.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the hon. and learned Member will come round with me, I will show him.

Mr. Willink: Of course, there are exceptions.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting one-room houses for old couples? He had better not try that in the North.

Mr. Willink: There are a great many old people who ask for a one-room house, provided it is properly equipped, and they like it better than anything else.

Mr. Griffiths: Not one in a thousand.

Mr. Willink: Well, the hon. Member's experience has not been the same as mine. Now I mention the one point on which I think the Debate might be of real use. The Assistance Board have indicated that they are—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1942.
2. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1942.
3. Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act,1942.
4. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Caernarvon) Act, 1942.

5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mold Gas and Water) Act, 1942.
6. Pembrokeshire County Council Act,1942.
7. London Passenger Transport Act,1942.
8. Mid-Wessex Water Act, 1942.
9. South Wales Electric Power Act,1942.

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Question again proposed,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1942, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st July, be approved.

Mr. Willink: In conclusion, I believe there is one way in which this day may be most profitably used. The Assistance Board have intimated that they have a big task in hand if they are to get these allowances into thorough circulation by the date they want to, which is 17th August. This day will be usefully given to this Debate, as, I believe, all of us can do something to procure for the old people in our constituencies the maximum benefit that these Regulations can give. In this Debate so far, the depreciative adjectives which we have heard have not been so violent as at other times. They have been such words as "niggling and miserly." In the last Debate we had the whole catalogue—" iniquitous," "infamous," "monstrous," "oppressive," "degrading" and '.' humiliating," words usually employed by those attacking any form of means or needs test. It horrifies me to think of the number of simple people who have lost allowances which would have been of value to them through being led to believe that the Regulations and their administration merited that description. I appeal to those who describe the administration in those terms to cease to do so from now onwards, in the interests of the old people. On the subject of the needs test, I would like to read to the House a passage from a publication which I have found exceedingly interesting, namely, the recommendations made to Sir William Beveridge's Committee by


the Assistance Board Departmental Whitley Council (Staff side). It includes this sentence:
We do not believe that the public rejects the fundamental principle that the citizen should get what he needs, indeed, rather do we believe that the public rejects the idea that any citizen should receive maintenance from the public purse when he is in a position to maintain himself. Interviewing officers of the Assistance Board have frequently received complaints in this key.
The rest of that document is of a most forward-looking and progressive character, and I would appeal to the House and to all hon. Members to cease from describing this most beneficent administration by these exceedingly derogatory terms. I believe that the very best thing we can each and all do is to do everything we can to make these Regulations and the practice which is intended to accompany them a success.

Mr. Pearson: I have no doubt myself that the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) will not be acceded to by most hon. Members of this House. I am certain that they will still use suitable adjectives in order to impress upon the House the meanness of certain features of Assistance Board administration. The House has shown anxiety regarding the old age pensioners and the widows of the country. Soberly considered, it becomes evident that something essential is overlooked in our social services as far as the Assistance Board administration is concerned. The State has left the old age pensioners and the widows insufficiently provided for. Even what aid there is cannot be obtained with full dignity. There is too low a maintenance income, and when you consider the unnecessary finesse in the administration of some of the Sections of the Act itself, I think it is high time that they were amended.
Take, for example, the winter allowances. If there is what is considered to be a free resource going into the pockets of an applicant, the Board does not award a winter allowance. Then again, in cases where the custom is prevalent of paying 6s. or 7s. a week for rooms, and tea and potatoes are given by the landlord in addition to the rooms, even in cases of that sort winter allowances are not granted. Why all this unnecessary finesse in regard to the applicants for supplementary pensions? Anyhow, a lively consciousness

has been aroused throughout the country which I think will corrode much of the tranquillity of hon. and right hon. Members in this House who think that the old age pensioners and widows can be satisfied with their present life. Hence, the old age pensioner and the widow are dependent upon justice being done by this House of Commons. I hope we shall not fail them.
These Draft Regulations do not conform to the fitness of things. These people have had a bad bargain in their lives, with long terms of unemployment and very little in the way of social services. Now that they have reached a pensionable age we are trying to squeeze little advantages which I maintain should be theirs. The income scales in the draft document are too low. They allow an income insufficient for adequate living. When living conditions are as difficult as they are now, the standard of maintenance income proposed still means a mean life and a scanty one. That is the urgency of realising increased incomes for those who are least able to help themselves. I hold that the will of the people is very strong and very clear as to the desirability of giving much greater incomes to the pensionable class, and I urge the raising of supplementary pensions to 25s. a week for a single person as a step in the fulfilment of the earnestness that so many feel in regard to pensions and, as another step, 42s. for a man and wife.
Let me again mention one of the small-minded things in the administration. Why should a man and wife be given 1s. a week less because the wife is under pensionable age? There is no generosity at all in that sort of treatment, and I ask that it should be abolished. I also appeal for the non-householder's scale to be abolished, and for the discrimination between the sexes to be abolished. I hope that hon. Members who belong to the fair sex will support me in that plea. These categories suffer a treatment which is parsimonious and vexatious, and I sincerely appeal for the abolition of the non-householder scale. We have an indirect method of arriving at the assessment for the non-householders, and invariably they get less than what is given to the householder applicants.
What is the barrier which stands in the way of giving these concessions? Is it finance? The Chancellor of Exchequer, I


am certain, will say that that is a very material factor. I hope to have a little to say on that at a later stage. Here we have supplementary pensions under unemployment assistance, and we have, I think, an opportunity to radiate a beacon light of realism in putting a fairly large section of the community beyond a meagre life of want. It has been well said that "Where there's a will, there's a way," and it is to the degree that we are prepared to express that will with determination that we can overcome the obstacles we see in our way. The cost of the increases to these classes of needful people need not overwhelm us. Yet the question will be asked, "Can the nation afford it?" Admittedly it is a large bill, but allow me to put these considerations. The national resources have grown in a striking fashion. Science and its application to industry and agriculture have enormously increased the capacity to produce commodities. Figures have been extracted by the Royal Statistical Society showing that the average national income for the years 1897 to 1903 was £1,666,000,000. A year before the last war Professor Bowley said that the figure had risen to £2,000,000,000 per annum. A White Paper published by the Treasury in April last gives the figure in 1938 as £4,595,000,000 and in 1941 as £6,338,000,000. From such a large annual national income surely can be wrested sound standards of supplementary pensions for the aged, the widowed and those who are on unemployment assistance.
I submit when such wealth abounds a nation's foundations are bound to deteriorate morally and spiritually if we allow to persist at the same time an insufficiency for sustenance to stalk the homes of perhaps nearly 2,000,000 of old age pensioners, widows and unemployed. We have no business to tolerate that. The national income is big enough to extinguish the worry and sorrow of want. Hon. and right hon. Members are worried from time to time about this old age pensions business, and I believe that when they are asked like that they invariably answer, "Yes, we think you should get enough in order to sustain the house," and so on. Happiness and welfare have an opportunity to spring from sound standards of livelihood. A good standard of maintenance is a good national investment. This generation must achieve and pass on to the next some fuller satisfying

content for those reaching pensionable age, and for widows and the unemployed. Without achieving this the Four Freedoms of the Atlantic Charter will be mocked as sheer insincerity. We dare not allow that to happen. It would not be worthy of our great traditions. The days we live through are admittedly difficult. Yet to go forward improving the lot of those receiving the lower and inadequate incomes in the country such as the pensioners will return a really good dividend of greater happiness and contentment among the aged in the country.

Mr. Graham White: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the days in which we were living were admittedly difficult. I think that is indeed a masterpiece of understatement. Admittedly difficult they are, but as I have been sitting here to-day it has occurred to me that one of the most remarkable things about this Debate is that it is taking place on one of the most critical days in the war. When our gallant Allies are sustaining an attack probably never equalled before, and we ourselves, though we perhaps do not realise it sufficiently, are a beleaguered island, it is a remarkable thing, and to the credit of democracy, that we should be considering the welfare and the care of the aged people in our land. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), speaking from his contact with some of these problems, made many observations with which I am in agreement. On the other hand, when he said that he congratulated the Government, I did not agree with him. I do not propose to congratulate the Government or anybody in this matter until we reach in this House of Commons a final settlement of this problem which removes any remaining reproach there may be to this House and to the nation at large in their treatment of the aged, and which will put an end to these discussions which we have periodically in this House on this subject. I intend to say very little now, because I have already unburdened my soul on behalf of the old age pensioners on many occasions, and I feel I have exhausted the right to be heard, and must give way to others. But I will say here again that it is an unseemly thing that the care of the aged people should be the subject of political controversy and dispute. The state of a civilisation may be well


judged by the attention and care it gives to its aged folk and also to the young. These are probably as good a test of civilisation as may be found. I think it an unseemly thing that we should be engaged in political disputes on that matter.
I hope that when we do reach the kind of settlement I have mentioned we shall find it is a settlement by the House of Commons as a whole. These suggestions which come to us to-day are at all events the product of the minds and attention and consideration of a united Government. That is something, but I hope when the day comes that we can congratulate ourselves on disposing of the problem it will be the product of the House of Commons and a united Assembly. That seems to me to be of great importance. These proposals may be mean, they may be miserly, they may be meagre. Those words have been used about the proposals to-day, but at all events the addition of from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 to the resources of the aged people of this country can do them no harm. To anybody living on an income of that scale an increment such as is proposed to-day is an important matter. We are often in our discussions disposed to overlook the point of view of the aged people. I said that it was a great tribute to democracy that in these terrible days we should be giving our minds, and, at least, a little of our money, for these people. The aged people would regard it, I think, as an insult if their needs were to become a sort of auction between the political parties: nobody is more proud than they. I do not know whether we sufficiently recognise the silent heroism of the aged people, which goes on year after year.
I have said that these proposals represent a contribution which will be acceptable, and which will do nobody any harm. But I. will tell the House one thing that they will not do. We are apt to speak of the old age pensioners as though they were all on the same level economically. There are many in whose homes any hon. Member of this House would be prepared to stay. On the other hand, there are the old, single people with no other resources. To them, the additional contribution will not make the difference between having a place in which to live and a place that they can call their home. Those who are familiar with the dwellings

of old age pensioners know that in some of them you will find chairs, a table, fire irons, the bare necessities of life, but none of those little accessories which make all the difference between a place in which you live and a place which you call a home. A sum of £11,000,000 may seem considerable, but it is not considerable in relation to the great increases of spending power which are being almost weekly added to the more fortunate sections of the community. In the conditions in which we live to-day, the real problem ought to be how to allocate priorities of claims upon the diminishing stock of commodities-available for. civilian resources. There is no question that the share allocated to the aged is still too small. Their feelings are not improved by the knowledge that week by week other sections of the community are adding to their spending power and their claims on existing supplies.
We are also up against the difficulty, which has been referred to to-day, that we have in this country a system of allowances in general which, as I have said before—and as I shall go on saying as long as I am in this House, unless things are altered—is absolutely indefensible. It is well known that our system of social security—or social insecurity—is based upon a collection of unequal allowances for equal needs. So long as that continues, a final settlement is impossible. I will refer to only one example. After these new Regulations come into force, with the increased benefits they give, the amounts available for food and clothing for a single couple, living on their pensions without other resources, will still be less than the 10s. 6d. a week which is given to a child evacuee under the age of five. One could go on for an almost unlimited time enumerating the anomalies of our social security system. But I take note of the assurance of my right hon. Friend that these proposals are not a final settlement. They could not be. We look forward to having, at a comparatively early date, if the march of events will allow it, a discussion—which I hope will be on a non-political basis—of the future of our social security system. We must work for the establishment of a national minimum to which every citizen who has not forfeited the right to citizenship by some act of his own shall be entitled, and which shall be related to a properly determined and agreed standard


of existence. That will enable all these anomalies to be swept away. It will lead to an immense simplification in administration. It may require a vast reorganisation of our machinery of government over a large area. I look forward to a discussion on those lines in the not distant future, because only when that is done shall we reach a state of organisation in which any reproach that there may still be that this nation is not providing for the aged will be removed. Then our system of social security will be a system of social security in fact as well as in name.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I agree with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) that it is a remarkable, if not a staggering, fact that at this grave hour we should be discussing a subject of this kind. It is equally surprising that we should have had, first, a speech such as that which was delivered by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), and, secondly, a group of Amendments on behalf of the Labour party such as appear on the Order Paper to-day. I am not going to deal at length with the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery, but I was somewhat amazed by his attack upon the Government and upon these Regulations because of the provision that is made for supplying old people with food, pots and pans, blankets, and so on. The hon. Member pours scorn on the Government for dealing with these matters, yet I remember that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who, speaking on behalf of the Labour party some months ago, asked the Government for these very things. It is extraordinary that when a response—and, as I think, a generous response—is made to such a precise demand, a spokesman for the same party should turn on the Government and trounce them. If that is not playing party politics, I do not understand the term.
So much for the speech. I turn now to the Amendments upon the Order Paper and notice that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asks that this Order be not approved in the absence of any specific assurance of further measures for old age pensioners to be introduced this Session.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Read it again. It says "next Session," not "this Session."

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I should have said "next Session." The point here obviously is that the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of his friends ask that the problem of old age pensions should be picked out of all the other social problems of the day, workmen's compensation, sickness, accident, widows, children and all the other range of problems, many of them equally pressing and many of which have been urged by hon. Members opposite—that this question should be taken out from all the others and dealt with separately. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who appointed the Beveridge Committee to deal with the very comprehensiveness of this problem and invited Sir William Beveridge to take the whole thing in his sweep, and surely it is an insult to the right hon. Gentleman to invite the Government to make a special provision to deal with pensions alone and to ignore altogether what has been done by that Committee,
May I call attention to another staggering fact in regard to the Amendment? The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and the Amendments of the other two groups of his friends apparently ask the House to vote against this Regulation to-day. Their object is that the Regulation be not approved. If I understood the discussion at the beginning of the Debate, the House is to be divided, and we are to be asked to vote upon this question. I do not know whether to take that as a serious move, but if we were to follow that advice and to withhold from the old people £9,250,000 now offered to them I have no doubt there would be an enraged outcry from the old people in every part of the country.

Mr. William Brown: We will take the risk.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has not a very great risk to take. Personally, I am not prepared to face my people and say to them that I voted against a Measure which was to bring thousands of pounds to the constituency I represent. I am not prepared to turn down an increase of 20 per cent. It is only an instalment. [Interruption.] Of course it is not enough. The new provision is some 20 per cent. better than it is now, and on behalf of those whom I represent and to whom I have given consistent


pledges, I am not prepared to reject this offer of the Government to-day.

Mr. Granville: If an Amendment should be called in favour of giving an increase, will the hon. Member support it?

Mr. Stewart: I will answer that question. Half a loaf or even in this case a sixth or a fifth of a loaf is better than no bread, and I would be a knave and a fool and false to every pledge I have given if I were to turn it down to-day. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead referred to the pensions enjoyed by old people as compared with the wages paid to workers in munition factories. In the first speech I delivered in this House, 13 months ago, after leaving the Army, I drew attention to the remarkable differences between the wages earned by munition workers and the allowances made to the dependants of soldiers and old people, and I pleaded then for an increase in these allowances and pensions. I stand by that plea to-day, and in so far as this Order meets that plea, I accept it and I am grateful for it, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having brought it in.
It is, of course, always possible to argue that half-a-crown is too little and that it ought to be 5s. or 5s. 6d., or something else. I could argue that case too. It is possible to argue that it should be something more than it is.

Mr. W. Brown: Is it impossible to vote for it? [Interruption.] Why cannot we vote for an increase in the Government proposal, and why are we limited in this Debate? It is a racket.

Mr. Stewart: I do not know who is the best judge of a racket, you Mr. Speaker, or the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown).

Mr. Brown: I do not know why the hon. Member is supporting the racket against an increase, anyway.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member will show me the courtesy of listening, he will see that I have a case to make. I say that an increase could be argued, but any dose examination of the Amendments on the Order Paper makes it abundantly clear that that is not the issue at all.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the sole issue.

Mr. Stewart: That is not the issue. It is abundantly plain that something much wider is asked for by the party or groups of the party opposite.

Mr. Gallagher: Will the hon. Member excuse me—

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member does not belong to the party.

Mr. Gallagher: I want to ask the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) whether along with the hon. Member for West Fife and the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), he did not attend a conference of the Old Age Pensioners Association and promised to support their demand. Why is he not doing it now?

Mr. Stewart: If I am permitted to continue my speech, I will show my hon. Friend that I am standing up to every pledge I have given, but I am saying that at this stage I am grateful for this instalment. That is all that I am saying. It would seem that there is no gratitude at all on the other side of the House. The Amendments on the Order Paper make it plain that those who support these Amendments ask for something much more than a mere addition to the supplementary pension. Obviously what they desire is a substantial permanent increase in the basic pension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that assurance. Now we know where we are. The party opposite want a substantial permanent addition to the basic pension payable to all old age pensioners irrespective of means or contributions to the pension fund; and their intention is clearly that the whole of the cost of this increase now and in the future should be borne by the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad we are now all clear about it.
The hon. Member for West Fife and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and my constituents know very well, for I have often expressed my views, that I dislike the process by which all people's affairs are pried into by officials of any Government Department. I do not like the means test. It applies most harshly to decent old people who have scraped and saved all their lives. I think it does harm. That is my view. I know the arguments which are put up in support of the means test and they are, of course, substantial arguments—so substantial that they are


accepted by Members of the Government from all parties. It is foolish to pretend they are not there, because they are. But I have come to the conclusion, after 10 years' very close association with this problem, that in the case of old people it is a bad system, with effects which are harmful to the national interest. I have often heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George; say that the State has many ledgers. One ledger may show a debit but that may be more than counterbalanced by a credit in another ledger. So it is in the case of old age pensioners. The means test may save millions of pounds, but I honestly believe that in the very process of saving on that ledger we may be losing millions on another side through the squandering of savings on the part of thousands of people throughout their lives. I, with hon. Members opposite would like to see the end of this test as applied to old age pensioners and I shall not feel satisfied that the pension is adequate until it has reached 30s. per week per person. These are my objectives, and I have little doubt that sooner or later they will be reached by this House.
The problem, however, is what are the means towards that end? The cost will be immense. Who is to meet it? That problem must be faced squarely and honestly by this House. It is one of the most important problems of this generation. I will say nothing at all about the acute financial position which will face us at the end of this war, nor about the grave economic problems which will confront us, though surely they already appear big and grave enough to cause us to pause and think before committing the Government to immense and undefined obligations in the future. I will confine myself to the single question of the population—a matter which, unfortunately, this House has almost entirely ignored but which I regard as one of the most serious problems of this age. I offer one reflection upon it, and I quote from a leading article in "The Times" of 20th April, to which I beg my hon. Friends opposite to listen, because I think it gets right at the root of this problem. This is the quotation:
The first stage in any population policy must be to discover the facts and make them known. There can be no long range planning of any value without them. Most people will

count upon the attainment of a considerable measure of reorganisation and stability within the next 20 years. But is it realised that the maximum size of the working population in 1960 is already fixed and, further, that unless the prevailing habits and tendencies in family life change radically, that population is itself doomed to decline? …. Children under 14 now constitute about 22 per cent. of the population of Britain. Unless recent trends change they will form in 30 years' time only 10.2 per cent. of the population and in 60 years only 4 per cent. The effect of such movement on the balance of youth and age in the population can be estimated with fair accuracy. If fertility and mortality remain what they have been during the last 10 years "—
and I beg the House to note the following words—
the proportion of aged persons in the community will be doubled by 1981 and the proportion of young persons will have been reduced by one-third.
[Interruption.] We are dealing in this House, I hope, with the generation ahead and if our policy is to be "To hell with the future" then I regard that as a most irresponsible attitude. Just think, that the proportion of aged persons in the community will be doubled in 40 years' time and the number of young people will be reduced by one-third. These are terrible facts and if there is any doubt about them here is the report of the Registrars-General for Scotland, England and Wales who say the same thing in other words, as follows:
In the group of persons over 65 years very large additions must be contemplated in the near future.
What is the effect of those trends of population on the problem of old age pensioners? I think it is abundantly plain. With every year that passes—and the tendency will accelerate as the years go on—the cost of old age pensions will rapidly increase and the numbers of those who have to bear it will steadily diminish. Members of the House who are now young will, before they have retired from public life, find the burden of old age pensions more than doubled while those who have to bear it, the youth of the generation, will have been reduced by a substantial amount. What that means in terms of individual responsibility I leave to mathematicians to work out. How is it possible—and this is where I begin to differ from hon. Members opposite—in those circumstances, for the National Exchequer to bear the whole cost of that massive, increasing amount of old age pensions? I say it is not possible and I declare that no Govern-


ment after the war will be likely to undertake the burden of that immense obligation. I believe that this increasing cost of old age pensions through taxation—because taxation is now levied upon all classes—will be regarded as an intolerable burden by the younger generation and by those who will be non-pensionable.
There is only one possible way to meet the objective which I have presented to the House—that is, 30s. a week pension, free from any means test. The only way is by a comprehensive insurance policy covering the whole nation. [Interruption.] What is the difference? The difference is that in an insurance scheme every man will be able to contribute to what he knows he himself will receive, and that is altogether different from State subventions. In urging this view I am merely repeating what I understand to be the actual proposals now before the Beveridge Committee, namely, one comprehensive insurance policy covering all needs, old age, sickness, accidents and so on. And may I add, if such a scheme is presented by the Beveridge Committee, as I hope in the autumn it will be, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not say that nothing can be done about it until after the war. If such a scheme is put up it ought to be put into operation at once. On the lowest grounds of financial expediency, such a course would appear to be wise. When an exceptional number of people are working and drawing exceptionally high wages, now, surely, is the time to secure their contributions and build up the fund out of which old people will benefit in years to come.
That is my policy for old age pensioners. It will achieve as much as and more than the critics have asked for to-day, and it will be fair to the taxpayer, just to the younger generation and generous to old people. Moreover, it will preserve and encourage enterprise, self-help and thrift in all classes and will, above all, sanctify in the hearts of our people of all ages that spirit of independence which has been the pride of our nation in the past and without which no real future lies ahead of us.

Mrs. Adamson: The great interest which is taken in this question of old age and widows' pensions in this House is an intimation of the importance of the subject and is also indicative of

the importance of public opinion on the question. When I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) I wondered whether everything in the garden was as lovely as he seemed to suppose. The contacts I have had with aged people and widows are of a different kind from his. I do not get the same refreshment from those contacts as evidently he did. In a recent Debate, the Government undertook to bring forward proposals before the report of the Beveridge Committee was ready, and they have done so. I know that these draft Regulations will mean an advance to many of our aged people. I would like to support the hon. Member who drew attention to the scales for the pensioner who is a householder but has no wife or husband and the pensioner who is living as a member of someone else's household; in these scales there is a differentiation of 1s. a week between the men and the women. I can find no justification for this differentiation. I think it must be part of the old assumption that it takes less to keep a woman than it does to keep a man, but there is no married man in this House who believes that. I feel that the Chancellor might have wiped out this differential payment and given the same amount.
I think the House will be quite justified in continuing to discuss this problem until such time as we get a long-term policy and social security not only for the aged people and the widows, but for all needy sections of the community. I do not think any apology is necessary for this discussion at this time, even though this is one of the most critical periods of the war. I am sorry the Government did not bring forward proposals concerning interest charges and the scales for deductions when people have small amounts. There are also other problems that might have been discussed and recommendations made in regard to them. Of course, the present report may only be an interim one; in view of the statements that were made by the Government in a previous Debate, that may well be the case. But it is piecemeal tinkering with a very difficult problem. The majority of people want a clear-cut scheme for the aged. We can always look to other countries and benefit from their experience. I have been very interested in the treatment meted out to the


aged folk particularly in one country, where the pensions are not called old age pensions, but age benefits, and where there is a flat rate scale of £1 10s. a week both for a man and his wife. The aged people there can own their own houses, because that country evidently desires to encourage its people to be thrifty, they can have £500 in the bank, and they can earn up to £1 a week. A scheme of that sort would simplify things in this country and cut away the necessity for such a large staff as we have administering the old age pensions in this country.
In a recent Debate, I pleaded for the widows, and I am disappointed that no concrete proposals have been brought forward to deal with the position of widows, unless, of course, they happen to be over 60, when they would benefit to some extent from the present Regulations. I said then that, until we get the long-term policy and the recommendations of the Beveridge Committee, the standing joint committee of working women's organisations, which represents over 2,000,000 working-class women, would welcome the extension of supplementary pensions for widows under 60, although they would prefer to have a fiat rate increase in the basic rates. I have received hundreds of letters from widows, many of whom receive no pensions, as their husbands did not come under the National Health Insurance or for one reason or another they fell out of that scheme. The plight of these women is very pathetic; they are left to struggle along to bring up their children, and by the time they get to middle age, they are worn out with the struggle, suffer from ill health, and have very little hope for enjoyment left in their lives. They have to wait until they qualify for the non-contributory pension at the age of 70, and as one widow said to me, "If my ill health continues, I shall not have to apply for one, because I feel I have not much longer to live."
We have to do something for the widows. We cannot go on neglecting and ignoring this problem. The first essential is to see that all widows receive pensions, and to see that there is an equalisation of the widows' pensions. I do not think anyone can justify the fact that a widow whose husband has paid into the National Health and Contributory Pensions Scheme receives 10s. a week, while another section of widows receive 25s. a week. As a

first instalment towards more adequate pensions for the widows of this country, there has to be equalisation. I believe the country holds the opinion that we ought to make the provision of widows' pensions a priority problem, and Members of Parliament will hear a good deal about this question in their constituencies. Then there is the position of spinsters. I have had many letters from spinsters who, for one reason or another, have not had an opportunity to qualify as workers—perhaps they have been engaged in domestic work at home helping their parents. Their plight is as pathetic as that of widows.
It may be that we shall require special legislation to deal with these problems. It may be that the Government cannot bring forward any proposals at the present time for supplementary pensions to widows under 60 because it would require legislation. One marvels to hear Members talking about the delay which is bound to arise over the introduction of special legislation, because, as one who was here in the early stages of the war, I viewed With great interest and amazement the rapidity with which legislation, which, of course, was absolutely necessary, "was rushed through the House of Commons. If we could do it for war purposes, I do not understand why it cannot be done to meet the needs of a deserving section of the community. I do not intend to speak at length to-day, because I spoke quite recently on this subject and on public platforms I have urged frequently the necessity for introducing more adequate pensions for our aged people, particularly for widows and fatherless children. There is no true wealth but life, and we shall not have a happy and contented community and rid the mind and lives of our people of the fear of want and poverty until we adopt a long-term policy and introduce social security schemes, instead of bringing forward, from time to time, Draft Regulations which make concessions to some but entirely omit to deal with others.

Mr. Rowlands: I had the good fortune to capture the eye of Mr. Speaker during the last Debate on this subject on 17th June. On that occasion a Motion was moved calling on the Government to inquire into certain cases where pensioners were finding it difficult to make both ends meet owing to war conditions. There was unanimity in the House at


that time that certain inquiries should be made. Obviously the Government have come to the conclusion that people in receipt of supplementary pensions are the very people who are in the greatest need. It was to them the Resolution referred. Even that Resolution did not ask for the remodelling of the whole scheme of pensions. We knew at that time that a committee had been appointed to consider the question. That committee is still sitting, and I cannot see why this discussion should have ranged over such a wide sphere, and why hon. Members should have spoken of a permanent scheme, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) did, instead of confining themselves to the Regulations before the House.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the means test principle in connection with supplementary pensions. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) mentioned it to-day and in the previous Debate, but the Resolution asked that something should be done for the needy, and I should like to know how it is possible to ascertain who are the needy without having some sort of means test. I do not understand hon. Members when they consistently object to the means test in such cases. After all, one after another hon. Member walked into the Lobby to support the principle of a means test in connection with the Members of Parliament Pensions scheme. I think we have brought the means test down to a very fine art. There is a means test for everyone who earns any money to see whether Income Tax deductions should be made. There is no objection to a means test for the man who has to pay, and if there is no objection in that case, how can there be any objection to a means test for the man who is to receive the money? Such an objection is simply not logical.

Mr. Kirkwood: The difference is this. We are appealing here for those who have not, but the hon. Member is referring to individuals who have. We want to take from those who have, and give to those who have not.

Mr. Rowlands: I thank the hon. Member for being so frank. He wants to take from those who have and give to those who have not. That has been going on for a very long time, and it will no doubt go on to the end of time. I join issue

with him however when he looks forward to the time when there will be no means test. That will come only when we are able to fix the pension of every individual higher than the highest supplementary pension given to-day. To-day supplementary pensions amount to 28s. for a single person, and £2 5s. for a married couple: I am not saying that I would not like to. see everyone receiving £2 5s., but until that economic problem is solved, we can only put up with this so-called irritating means test and do the best we can for the supplementary pensioner. I congratulate the Government on the speed they have, shown in bringing forward these Regulations. I am not saying that I should not like to see the rates a little higher. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) said that the increase would do no harm and the Minister of Health said that that was a masterpiece of understatement. I am surprised that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead should say that the increase will do no harm, for I am convinced the increase of 5s. per week will be a great assistance to any aged couple who find it difficult to make both ends meet; and I am certain the aged supplementary pensioners will be very pleased with the increase. I go further and say that five shillings to a couple who need it will do a great deal of good. For that reason I thank the Government for what they have done and the speed with which they have done it.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not want the statement of the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) to go forth, with the idea that everyone in the House agrees with his theory that a one-roomed house will do for an old couple. [Interruption.] Then I must be deaf. The hon. and learned Member definitely mentioned a one-roomed house. If they attempted to put up a one-roomed house in the Hemsworth Division the old people themselves would pull it down. People want a small living room and a room to sleep in as well. If the Government, or any local authority, ever attempted to put up a one-roomed house the outcry in the country would be very loud. I wish the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) would read the Order Paper. He said there were three Amendments by the Labour party. There is only one official


Amendment. I wonder how often the National Liberal party—it sometimes takes us all our time to find them on that Bench—have put down two or three Amendments when they are not agreed.' The hon. Member talked for a long time, and during his speech I said to one of my colleagues, "He is meeting himself coming back now." He spoke in full sympathy with our Amendment and said something must be done for the old-age pensioners. But he wants it done "in the sweet by-and-by."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, I said this year. I feel that, if the Beveridge Committee recommends a particular policy, it ought to be accepted and put into operation at once so that a 30s. pension, free of means test, can begin at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Griffiths: When we get the Report, it will not be dealt with in a day or a week. It will be of such immensity that it will take months. It is going to be the biggest security scheme since Adam came out of the garden. That is how we feel about it. A lot of these people will be on the other side of the coffin lid before anything is done if the hon. Member's speech is to be accepted. There are one or two respects in which this recommendation falls short, and the matter is causing tremendous concern in the country. The old age pensioners who have not had any supplementary pension feel very bitter that there is not something in the proposal for them. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) spoke about the means test. The first means test introduced almost drove some of us mad. It was a family means test and, whether a man lived at home or not, if he was the son of an applicant for an old age pension, or unemployment benefit, he had to help to pay. We then got to the household means test. That hit the single young man as well as the old people and those who were out of work. We fought that proposal. Now it is reduced to a personal means test.
The personal means test is too mean. There are thousands of old age pensioners who have saved a bit. Before I came to the House I tried to save a bit, but I could not save much. I was rearing a family. To provide for the day when I could not work any longer, I tried to put a bit on one side practically every week. Thousands of workers are doing the same

to-day. Now that they have a certain amount the Government says to them, "You cannot have anything more than the bare 10s. although you have been the salt of the earth." Those people are feeling very bitter about these Regulations. I met one of them in my division the other day. I did not like to have to talk to him in the way I did, but I am in the third team belonging to the Government and I have to stand by the Government in a sense. I say to the Government however, that the people who are not getting the supplementary pension are very bitter because there is not a flat rate pension for them. I would like to say a word following what the hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) said about widows who are not 60. How many widows below 60 are there with children? The Government have not given them a brass farthing. They receive only 10s. with 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the second. The wife of a Service man gets 8s. 6d. for the first child and 6s. 6d. for the next. Therefore, the widow who has to fight for herself gets only as much for two children as the soldier's wife gets for one. The Government should have done something in these Regulations for such widows, who are feeling very bitter about it.
I am not going to damn the supplementary pension. I say candidly that it has brought happiness to thousands of old age pensioners. I met one of my men on Thursday morning, and said, "How are you going on Tom? How about it? "He said, referring to the pension," I am glad of it George; it puts me all right." He and his wife now get 45s. a week. A few years ago he was in a signal-box on the main railway and was getting 30s. He is an old man now, 80 years of age. He will not live much longer, and with the sun of his life going down on the western side of the hill, this supplementary pension brings to him and his wife some happiness. I have damned the investigators in the past and I have had my reasons for doing so. I have gone to the office and told them some names, with knobs on, but the investigators now, as far as my folk are concerned, are behaving like ladies and gentlemen. I want to give praise where it is due. The old age pensioner I have been talking about said to me, "The lady came into my house, and she sat down and said, 'Now then, what about your clothes?' I said, 'I have got a top coat.'


She asked, What is it like? I said, 'I have had it 12 years.' She said, 'You ought to have a new one; go and get one.' "That is the right spirit. There may be some of the investigators who go in with a superior air. They do not understand humanity, and when they ask questions in an Oxford or Cambridge accent of a collier or a railway man, it sets up the backs of the people. It is spread about that investigators are making these inquiries and that creates a bad feeling. I am sorry that these Regulations do not give some increase to the people who have been thrifty in the past and have a pound or two in the bank. If they had done so, the old age pensioners all over the country would have risen up and called the Government blessed.

Mr. Francis Watt: We have listened to a very sincere speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). I do not propose to say much, but it is right that a word or two from Edinburgh should be uttered. I have many old age pensioners in my constituency, and for some time I have felt—and I am glad that the Government have realised it—that enough was not being given to them. I welcome what the Government have done, not that it is the end. I prefer to regard it only as the beginning, but it is a good sign that in the course of a war the Government have found it possible to remember the needs of the old people. The means test has been a serious matter for many of the old folk. There is a good deal to be said for its abolition, because, as it stands, it means that people who have dissipated their money for years will get a comparatively large pension, whereas people who saved will be penalised. I look forward to a time when this sort of inequality will be straightened out, but I appreciate the difficulties which the Government have to face during a war. During the by-Election in Central Edinburgh two old age pensioners pointed out to me that whereas if an old person cares to put money in war savings under the limitations and regulations which the statute provides, that money is not counted against him. On the other hand, if he put a similar sum into a savings bank it is counted against him. That is not fair because, in the end, the money will go to the same purpose. The savings bank will lend the money for war purposes. I welcome this

move on the part of the Government. It is a sign of something to come. I hope that when the proper time arrives all parties will unite on this matter without regard to politics and that the Government will settle, once and for all, the problem of the old age pensioner.

Mr. Tinker: I want to say a word about the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). He spoke in the last Debate on 17th June and he spoke again to-day, saying that he could not see any use for the discussion. If he thought so why did he take up time? Many of us are deeply interested in this matter and want the attention of Parliament to be given to it. That is why on 17th June we asked the Government to give attention to it. I give the Government credit for taking the matter up, but I expected after that Debate that something more would have been given. Of the 25 speeches in the Debate, nine were by Conservatives, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of those nine, only one was against any increase, and that was made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). Four were in favour of an increase of supplementary pensions and three of the Conservatives were in favour of an increase of the basic rate for all old age pensions. That was the view of the Conservative party, the biggest party in the House. Nearly one-half were in favour of an increase in the basic rate. Two Independents took part and they were in favour of an increase in the basic rate. One Independent Labour Party member was in favour of an increase in the basic rate, and 13 Labour Members were all for the basic increase.
That was the expression of the House of Commons and after that Debate I expected that something would be done on those lines. At a time like this, when we cannot have General Elections, if there is a concensus of opinion in one direction in the House of Commons the Government should, we feel, bow to the will of the Commons. Outside the House of Commons, wherever there are meetings of old age pensioners—I do not care where a Member may come from, even the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) who cannot' see his way to support the basic increase—there is a desire for an increase in the basic rate. That being the feeling throughout the


country and in Parliament why could not the Government have done something better? They come forward with an offer of 2s. 6d. per week increase in the supplementary old age pension. As far as it goes that is good, and no one wants to say differently, but why could not the Government have gone further? Why not an increase of at least 5s., and why should not the 5s. have been given to every old age pensioner? Wage earners all over the country have had increases in pay of much more than we are asking for old age pensioners. If it was thought right to give this money to supplementary pensioners why could not the Government have been a little more generous? I expect the excuse will be" Later there will be a more comprehensive scheme. The Beveridge Report will come up and we shall implement that and do something of a more permanent character." Does not, everybody expect that the Beveridge scheme will be better than this offer, and if that is so, what is there wrong in anticipating the Beveridge scheme by making a better gesture now? Is it too much to ask for 5s. addition to every old age pension? The Beveridge scheme will go beyond that.
Now I want to turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he made his report to the House about the Government decision he was asked whether it was a Cabinet decision, and he gladly took the opportunity to say "Yes, and a unanimous decision." I wonder whether the Cabinet had examined the position thoroughly. I have realised that if any Minister of the Crown puts a proposal before the Cabinet invariably the members of the Cabinet, all of whom have a tremendous amount of work to do in their own Departments, are quite ready to accept what the Minister proposes. Here we have a Chancellor with the Conservative outlook, one who believes in the needs test and who has consulted the Assistance Board. Why should the Assistance Board have been brought in? The very fact of going to the Assistance Board would bring up the needs test. The Chancellor makes up his mind on what he thinks is a fair offer and goes to the rest of the Cabinet, already burdened with work, to put his proposal before them. The members of the Cabinet say, "Has this question been examined?" The Chancellor replies, "Oh yes, I have examined it and the Assistance Board

has helped me, and I have come to the opinion that 2s. 6d. in quite sufficient." Then the rest of the Cabinet say, "If that is your opinion we are prepared to accept it." At once the Cabinet is behind the proposal and the Chancellor can tell us that it is a unanimous decision. Yes, and we shall have the other members of the Cabinet backing the Chancellor in what he has said. I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon his adroitness. To-day he stepped down and the Minister of Health was put up, and we are to have the Minister of Labour to reply—a Labour representative. What a difficult position we shall be in when one of our trusted men comes forward and tells us, "This is what you ought to accept." We shall be torn over the question of what we ought to do.
I have made up my mind what I shall do, and I realise that when I have decided to act in a certain way I must accept all the implications of my action. It might be that the House would vote with me in the way in which I am intending to vote, and if that should happen, then the increase of 2s. 6d. would be lost for the time being. I am prepared to take that risk. I am going to vote against this Regulation because I believe that it is nothing like fair, and if that means losing the extra 2s. 6d. for the time being, I shall accept that position, because I know that no Government can hold out very long against the pressure from the country. If the Government's offer were turned down to-day it would mean a little longer waiting for these 1,200,000 people. I feel sorry for them, but it is a matter on which I feel so keenly that I shall go into the Division Lobby against the Regulation with the object of impressing upon the Government, the House of Commons and the country that the time has come for an increase in the basic rate for every old age pensioner and widow. That is the standpoint I shall take to-day. It is with a very sad heart that I am going to do it. I should have liked to embrace the offer from the Government, and had it been an offer of 5s. increase all round, I should gladly have gone into the Lobby in support of it. As the offer goes only part way and applies only to supplementary pensions I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote against it.

Mr. Robertson: We all appreciate the knowledge which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has of this


subject and realise the genuine desire he has to make things better for the old people, but I do genuinely feel that hon. Members on all sides of the House ought to try to balance this problem of need against the ability of the taxpayers to find more money at this time. Speaking for my own constituents, and I have an intimate knowledge of the position of many of them, they are not able to pay a penny more in taxation. It. is an effort to meet their commitments in respect of Income Tax and to live. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) attacked me in regard to a proposal which I made in a supplementary Question a few weeks ago respecting Darby and Joan clubs for relieving the loneliness of old people. I will deal with that in a few minutes' time. He knows nothing at all about Darby and Joan clubs, because in the few words one can utter in putting a supplementary Question I was not able to explain exactly what that proposal meant. He went on to say that he hoped my circumstances would never bring me to have to share the lot of a supplementary old age pensioner. I should like to tell the hon. Member that I was married on £120 a year and that I brought up children on a little more; that I served in the last war as a private soldier with a wage of 3s. 6d. and a guinea allowance to my wife and two children, at a time when eggs were 9d. each and the cost of living was at least twice as much as it is to-day. If the wheel of fortune goes round again and I have to get back to that state of living, I shall be well experienced in it, and I shall be in very good company.
In the recent pensions Debate I had the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. speaker, and I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the supplementary pension should be increased by 2s. 6d. a week to old age pensioners living alone, and that the winter allowance should be increased, and extended to the end of April. I am gratified to note that the proposals now before us run along lines similar to my suggestion. What is much more important, my elderly constituents are also well satisfied. I had the pleasure of taking tea with 650 on Sunday, all of them supplementary pensioners, 650 Victorian and Edwardian ladies and gentlemen with charming manners, spotlessly clean, well turned out, and smiling, in spite of their aches and pains and lack of

surplus cash. Every one of them must have suffered the ups and downs of life and the grief and pain, and the compensating love and laughter that must have come to everybody who has reached three score years and ten. The mellowing effect was obvious in their serenity and contentment. The wild language that I have heard to-day from the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) was not used by them. I am under the impression that the hon. Member was uttering what was in his own thoughts and not what was in the thoughts of the old age pensioners for whom he was speaking. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know? "] I know the thoughts of 650 of them last Sunday afternoon, and my old age pensioners are not so different from the pensioners of the hon. Member. I spoke to them of the examination now being made by Sir William Beveridge and the hopes of Members of this House on all sides that that great economist would solve this problem permanently in a manner acceptable to pensioners and taxpayers. Those old age pensioners of mine loudly cheered when I told them of that, and of the allowances which we are debating to-day.
Now I will turn to the Darby and Joan Club, which the hon. Member for Abertillery, with no knowledge and little wisdom, has seen fit to decry. Streatham, one of London's fine towns, is now negotiating for a house—a roomy Victorian house—with large public rooms and fine gardens, in order to equip it as a good, and almost a first-class, club. This club will have comfortable chairs, bright fires, I hope, cheery rooms, reading facilities, hot mid-day meals at from 6d. to 8d. and hot baths for men and women, as well as other amenities. It will not be tied down and restricted' to my constituents only, but it will be open to the constituents of any other Member in the neighbourhood for as long as we have room for them. I hope and believe that it will be overcrowded.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will it be a public institution?

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Member waits, I will develop the matter and tell him the whole story.

Mr. Davies: Possibly we might get something factual and less poetry.

Mr. Robertson: I think I shall be able to convince the hon. Member that the proposed club will not be a burden on the ratepayers and that we shall be able to do something for the pensioners. I am positive that many old people have nothing to attract them out of their homes. Many of them have lived active business lives or lives with their families, and are now living in a bed-sitting room and are very lonely. They cater only for one, or for two. If they go out and visit a place where they were once employed they find another generation installed there who probably never knew them, and moreover are too busy to stop and talk. The result is that most old people feel that they do not play any part in our national life and that they are of no use any longer. The membership of the proposed club will be entirely free to them. It will aim at providing them with an object and an interest in life. They will be able to go out of their homes and go to the club, and the walk will do them good. Maybe they will have a ride in a tram or a bus. The club will be centrally situated, and we might be able to carry there the hard core of cripples, where they will be able to get the services I have mentioned, including human kindliness, not only from people of their own age, but from a younger generation who are working for their livelihood but are willing to give their spare time free to help the old people by cooking for them, waiting on them and talking to them.
That is a praiseworthy object, I think. It is the responsibility of the community to look after its old people and we are going to it in Streatham. It is early yet to talk about it, as we have not begun, but we have some knowledge of similar clubs for younger people, and we are hopeful of success. In regard to the finance, Streatham has a population of 68,500 people, and if each of them contributed 3d. per year the yield would be £850, which would be more than enough to meet the outgoings of the club, having regard to the fact that the labour will be voluntary and unpaid. Hot midday meals from 6d. to 8d. will be a tremendous boon to the old people, providing nourishing food at a cost within their purchasing power and solving the awful problem of trying to cope with rationing when there are only one or two in the household. It will also help to solve their shopping problems.
I would refer again to the party on Sunday, because it was the most wonderful party I have ever attended. The people were most encouraging. I wish I could utter words that would describe them to hon. Members. It may be that when we get our club going I shall be able to invite hon. Members to it, even those who are scoffing now, so that they can see it in reality. The Streatham Forces Club is for young people in the Forces and for officers, and we held the party there, so that the old age pensioners could see the kind of thing which our committee have in view for them. On leaving, I spoke to every one of those pensioners; many spoke with emotion of their loneliness, and all were enthusiastic about our club. I am too, and so is Streatham. I think Britain will be also. If I am right, we may have many similar clubs in other parts of the country, so that Darby and Joan may go on up the hill together, and not downhill, smiling and happy to the end of the road.

Mr. Ktrkwood: I will not follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), although I am very tempted to do so. I rise because I feel that we of the Labour movement are faced with a very serious situation. It will be impossible for me to justify the part that the members of my party who are in the Cabinet have played. Time and again I have been in a tight comer because of the part played by members of the party of which I have been a member for practically 50 years. We were let down badly by members of our party when they went into the Cabinet in the last war, and I must honestly say that I expected, as a result of the bitter experience our people had on that occasion, that our representatives in the Cabinet this time would have been as courageous as we have always thought them to be when it came to a crisis.
If there is anything that has been definitely laid down by our party at conference after conference, it is that there was to be an increase in old age pensions. Of course, there are Labour Members in the Cabinet; they are there because we put them there, and because they represent Labour. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) drew the attention of the House to the fact that not only the Labour party but the Conservative party and every party in every quarter of the House were asking the Government to


increase old age pensions. The Government are taking upon themselves a power they have not got. The unwritten constitution of this House and of the Government of the country is that the House of Commons makes the laws, and not the Government. This House has instructed the Government as to the lines they ought to take, and the Government have refused to accept the instructions of the House. Therefore the Members of the House of Commons need have no hesitation whatever in going into the Lobby and voting against the Government. They have ignored the House, and they are ignoring the voice of the country.
For whom are we appealing? Are we appealing for the strong and virile, the mentally and physically well-equipped, the young and the vigorous who are able to take care of themselves? No, Sir. Nobody knows better than the Minister of Labour that we are appealing for the veterans of industry. There is not a member of our party who dares face his constituency and support the Government in what they are doing to-day. In my opinion they have betrayed their trust, a high and honourable trust placed upon them in a position of power, in not having had the courage to tell the Cabinet that they could take no part in any proposal such as this. The Minister of Labour, before he took office, knew that he could bring the workers along with him and that he would have a backing. That is the part he has played, and quite scientifically, I know, in many ways. But this is an open action against the working class and against all that we Socialists have ever stood for.
The hon. Member for Streatham—I am sorry he is not in his place—said that the taxpayer could not afford it. I say, recognising all that it implies, that the country which cannot afford to give a decent standard of life to its aged folk is not worth fighting for. But I do not believe a word of it, because this country can afford to give double what we, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) and myself, are asking for here. We are putting forward a simple proposition involving only 30s. a week. There is not a man in this House who could live on 30s. a week, and a good many of them would make a hole in the Thames rather than come

down to that standard of life. That being the case, they have no right to ask it of others. I wish I could awaken their conscience and make it into a canker that would roast and toast them, these people who are condemning our aged people to such a life. They are condemning our old folk to penury. For whom are we appealing? For our aged and poverty-stricken, yet we have men, and among them a Scotsman too, I am sorry to say, justifying it and saying that they are happy and contented. It is a tragedy that we should need to stand here and appeal for them. If I cannot persuade the Government and the Labour Members in the Government, I will do the opposite: I will denounce them for the part they are playing to-day.
Over 10 years ago, and you were then in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I appealed to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and because of the way he replied to me then that the country could not afford it, the fight I put up on that day finished in my being suspended from the House of Commons. That was over 10 years ago. Here we are to-day, with thousands of the sons of these old folk fighting for this great country, fighting for democracy. What a mockery. Where is the democracy? We have begged. Does the House think that before doing this I have not appealed to the powers-that-be, and asked them for God's sake—maybe in somewhat stronger terms—to do something, urged that we had pledged ourselves, and that if they would even grant what the deputation to the Cabinet asked, we would not divide the House? They would not grant it. They sent all the power they have to appeal to our party to accept nothing—no concessions. Our party is a generous party and has been very generous with our representatives in the Government to-day. There was a request, no demand, and yet—no concessions. All the old folk in this country expected action when we got Labour Ministers, some of them in particular of the calibre they are, some who rank so very high in the estimate of our folk. It is all the more crushing that nothing has happened.
My last word is this. It was just the same with the coal question. I have said it outside, and I will say it here, that if those who are our representatives in the


Cabinet had laid it down, "Unless you nationalise the mines we will resign," the Prime Minister, powerful as he is—and I do not think he is just so very powerful—would have had to concede that to our representatives. It is the same in this question of these old age pensioners, and unless the Government are to give us some concession—it is in their power yet to do something—I will do all I can to divide the House and vote against the Government.

Mr. Lipson: Not all hon. Members will agree with the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but I think I shall have them all with me in saying that we welcome him back to the House after his recent illness, and the vigour with which he has addressed us has shown that his strength is fully restored. He, speaking as a member of the Labour party, expressed some disappointment with the fact that the proposals which are before the House to-day have had the support of the Labour representatives in the Cabinet. I can very well understand his disappointment at this fact, his very bitter disappointment, because though I myself am not a member of the Labour party, I too share that disappointment. Though I recognise that the proposals now before us, which will provide an additional £11,000,000 a year or so for the benefit of the old age pensioners, are not to be despised, and indeed, I am glad to thank my right hon. Friend for having proposed them, yet I should be doing wrong if I gave an impression that I am satisfied with them. What disturbs me is that these proposals come from a Government representative of all parties, and yet the actual proposals themselves are too reminiscent of the approach to this question again and again in the past. These proposals were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but, of course, the author of these proposals is really the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These two Ministers are fighting a rearguard action against the inevitable.
Does the House really think that in that new order which we have been promised as a result of the war we shall consider that 10s. a week as a basic amount is adequate for old age pensioners? But we are told that these proposals to-day have nothing to do with a long-term policy, and as my hon. and learned Friend the

Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) said quite frankly, these proposals do not involve a change of policy. That is exactly my quarrel with them. I think that if we are sincere in our determination to bring a new order about as the result of the war, a more just order, and certainly a better treatment of old age, then we ought to give practical effect to that policy here and now. It is because I see in these proposals disturbing signs that that is not so that I am very concerned about them, because it seems to me that the attitude of mind and the frame of mind of the Government are not attuned to the things for which we are fighting this war. Like many other hon. Members I have talked to my constituents about the new order. I have spoken to them about the Four Freedoms, including the freedom from want. I cannot reconcile what I have said to them with the particular proposals before the House to-day. As I see it, the method of approach to this problem was that these Ministers said, "What is the least we can give to the old age pensioners to satisfy them for the time being, and enable them to continue to exist? "And when they decided it was to be 2s. 6d, they said," Do not let us make it too easy for them to get even that. Therefore let us put it in the form of an addition to the supplementary pension with all the inquisitions that means."
I know the old age pensioners in my constituency, and I say that they hate the inquisitions involved in the means test. I would remind the House that the old age pensioners have a special claim upon us in war-time. Everybody who has seen them after enemy action has admired their courage and their heroism, but conditions of war impose a special strain upon them. It is the duty of this House to relieve them of the financial difficulties which have been so considerably increased for them by the war. You cannot hope to change your policy on a fixed date after the war. If you really believe in a new order, it has to show itself in the policy you pursue now. Although one has to accept these proposals for the time being, this is by no means the end of the matter. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to give this matter further consideration. The case for an increase in the basic pension has been more than made out. The national well-being will benefit by a policy of that kind. I ask him not to delay too long in making


that increase. We have had one Latin quotation to-day; may I end with another?
Bis dot qui cito dat.
He gives twice who gives quickly.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in his hopes of the new order, because I, alas, am one of those who feel that if this war goes on long, it will mean, not that everybody will be better off, but that most of us will be a good deal worse off. At the same time, I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I can well understand his feeling in regard to the 5s. all round: that he would have been prepared to have welcomed it at this time. Many hon. Members would have liked a bit more than a nibble, something more substantial, if the old age pension question was to be tackled in this way. I would have welcomed an extra 5s. all round, for two reasons. For one thing, unlike many hon. Members, I think we shall be getting poorer, and not richer, as the war goes on; and if you are. going to make a jump in favour of the aged, it might have been easier to do it now than later on. Also, in the general stress of war, the half-crown per head increase will pretty soon be eaten up. I think we could have waited some little time for the Beveridge Report—in which I have not the same confidence as, perhaps, some other Members have. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour speaks he will give some indication of the line that the Beveridge Report is going to take; because if it is going to consider, as I rather think it may, the question of how far the Unemployment Insurance Fund will enable the basic pension to be raised, the basic pension might be raised quite a bit without doing anything further in regard to the position of many supplementary pensioners, who, unless the basic pension went very high, would still be outside its scope. Unlike the hon. Member for Leigh, I take the view that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I am going to support these Regulations.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), in rather an interesting speech, emphasised how the conditions had improved in respect of the way in which people who go around to assess the

needs of the aged consider sympathetically what their diet is. I think that is so, but I hope that the Minister will impress on all his inspectors the need to be sympathetic and gentle when they deal with the question of clothing. The other day I had a case before me of someone who had his needs assessed. The old age pensioner said to me that he did not object to some form of needs assessment for his old age pension, but he objected to having someone looking around and saying, "Why have you a piano? If you sold that, you would be better off." That is the sort of thing which does harm. I believe it happens far less now. A tremendous lot depends on the Ministry and the Assistance Board making it easier for the genuine cases to feel that they can apply without having mud chucked at them. I favour the supplementary pension, and I believe it has worked far more fairly than the old Poor Law method, before the 1940 scheme came into operation.
I would say to the Government, considering the future as well as the present, that we may at times have these struggles in regard to a few shillings here and there, but I, speaking as one who in many ways would be regarded by this House as rather a right-wing Tory, believe that when we are dealing with the necessities of the very poor we should stretch the line a great deal further than in any other case. Many of these old people have no future to look forward to. Many of us look forward to the days after the war, when, in spite of the unpleasantness which will come, we hope to see a better world, a better Europe, and a better Britain. But to many of these people of 70 and 80, the war means the break-up of most of the little things they enjoyed. Their friends and relatives who used to come to see them come so seldom now, because of transport difficulties and so on. It is a bleak out-look for them. I ask the Government, in assessing need, to bear in mind the extra difficulties of those to whom the future, apart from what we in the House can do, can bring no hope.

Mr. Silverman: It is some measure of the disquiet and uneasiness that are general on these Benches, and among the people whom we on these Benches represent, that such an appeal as we have just heard should have been addressed by the Member who addressed it to a Government in which the Labour


party is a free and equal partner, and to which we have pleaded, in all probability, in vain. I could wish that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is to reply for the Government, could have listened throughout the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Flight-Lieutenant Raikes), and could have considered what he had to say against the background of what my right hon. Friend has been saying all his life, contrasted with what he proposes to do to-day. Something has been said in this Debate about making party politics of this matter at this moment. I gladly confess that the last two speeches from the other side of the House go some way towards removing any such reproach, if reproach there be. I have never been one of those who have thought that until poverty is abolished there is no possibility or no desirability that questions of poverty should be kept out of politics. We were told that we have done it. We were told, in the case of unemployment benefit and of unemployment relief, and old age pensions, that the whole purpose of setting up the Assistance Board, whose regulations could be presented to this House but not amended by it, was so that there should not be and could not be in future any capital made by political parties out of the miseries of people whom the community ought to relieve.
The Motion that is before the House is one to approve Regulations of the Assistance Board, but everybody seems to have forgotten the Assistance Board. Nobody in the whole course of the Debate has sought for a moment to lay the responsibility for these proposals upon the Assistance Board. The business of the Assistance Board is to find out what it is necessary to do in order that destitution shall be relieved, to make proposals to that end and to leave this House with the responsibility of accepting or rejecting those proposals. There ought not to be any room on such an occasion for what the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) called temporising and compromise. There ought to be no question of bargaining between the political parties, of deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of discussions by the Cabinet and unanimous decisions, not to do what is necessary to relieve the old age pensioner but to temporise and compromise what is necessary. There ought to be no need for that. This House set

up machinery, which, we were told, was to bring all that to an end. We have not done it.
My right hon. Friends have put down an Amendment to the Motion. For what do they ask Do they ask that the difficulties of old age pensioners and widows to whom they refer in their Amendment shall be relieved? No, they say that the proposals now before the House are not an adequate step towards relieving those difficulties. How few steps ought there to be before each step in succession shall be regarded as an adequate step towards relieving them, and, having decided that these proposals are not even an adequate step towards relieving them, do they then make it clear that they are going to oppose them? Oh no, only if they do not get assurances. Assurances about what? Assurances that in the next Session not that the difficulties shall be relieved but that there shall be an adequate step towards relieving them. We are not dealing to-day, just as we were not dealing on 17th June last, with any grandiose scheme of social security in the future. I agree that when you are planning measures of social reconstruction on a permanent basis you cannot deal with the question of old age pensions by itself, and I do not suppose for one moment that the Bevericge Committee will seek to do that. I do not know when it will report, but I do know that when it does report there will be more bargaining, temporising and compromising with all kinds of interests and all kinds of bodies and institutions, and then, finally, some day, nobody knows when, some legislation will be introduced into this House and at some unforseeable date thereafter some legislation may be passed.
But we are dealing with the existing generation of old age pensioners. We are talking about relieving their needs. They cannot wait for your grandiose scheme of social reconstruction. They read your Atlantic Charters and hear your eloquent speeches about freedom from want, and they say, "If you mean all this, when are we to be free from want? Are we to be free from want only when the time comes when we shall want nothing, a time which is rapidly coming?" The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) apparently went to tea with 650 old age pensioners, and he thought they were satisfied, but I am bound to say that his speech was a poor recompense for the


hospitality they showed him, and I am not sure that they will give him any tea the next time. [Interruption.] I am sure that they will not be anything like as nice to him the next time. I do not trust the hon. Member's interpretation of what they need. No one in this country has shown himself better able to express their needs than the people themselves. I am going to ask the House to indulge me while I read one of the many letters I have had, as I am sure other hon. Members have had, but I think it is worthy of being enshrined in the permanent records of the Debates in this House. I am not going to give the name and address. I am particularly asked not to do so, but if anyone would like to see it, I will gladly show them the letter:
Dear Sir, I trust this will not weary you, but I am trying to make myself very plain. My husband is a house-painter, but as that was mostly a seasonal occupation he worked mostly in a pit until the slump of 1921, since when he has mostly been on the dole "—
21 years—
As you know, the dole was 2s. for each child. For years I could not go out as I never had anything fit to wear, my husband doing our bit of, shopping on his way home on dole day. Our lives were mostly trying to keep the kiddies clothed and gathering cokes and sticks for the fire. We had a two-roomed house; even if there were houses available we could not have afforded the rent. Time passed, and my eldest son joined the Army as he could not get work. I now had a family of nine—three boys and six girls. The eldest girls went away to service. My son did his six years in the Army, came home, and his reservist pay was taken into account with the means test. He also had to go on the dole. Eventually had a job and then he got married. My second son was lucky enough to have work as a lorry driver's mate. His wages also were taken into consideration with the means test. My younger son was sent to a Government training centre and started work at an aerodrome when he was called up as a pre-war conscript. We have never had a holiday, have thought ourselves lucky if we managed to have any food in the house when dole day came round. It came March, 1940. My husband reached 65 and qualified for an old age pension. But after so many years privation is it any wonder that now when there is work available even for aged people he is unable to work? For myself I suffer from vertigo and from very bad eyesight. I should have had spectacles years before I did but I could not afford them, and I am unable to get work. We have a daughter, the youngest, who won a scholarship for Monmouth school. The elder one said she was to go and that she would help her with clothes, etc. We draw a supplementary pension of 38s. 6d. a week for husband, wife and daughter.

Our family, like most, are in the Services. My second son recently got married. I had until then drawn 13 s. Army allowance out of which they kept 8s. 9d. weekly from his Army pay. We agreed that it would be just as well for him to get married, so that if he was spared after the war his money—wife's allowance—would go towards setting up a home. As you can see our lives have been one long drag of pinching and scheming, just trying to get shelter and something to eat. Year after year. Now when we might have had a bit of ease, the Government has taken our family, and we have 38s. 6d. a week to provide for three for coal, light, insurance and rent, etc. Clothes I have left out. I have had nothing new for 20 years. Our case is no different from thousands of others who have had to drag on the dole and who now still drag along on old age pensions. For ourselves, getting towards the end of our life's journey, it does not seem to matter so much. Quite possibly we have become so accustomed to it that we have sort of lost any feeling or hope for betterment, but for our children's sake and their children afterwards this war, terrible as it is, will have proved worth while if they have better homes and security from want. Summed up briefly. The Government allowed us 2s. a week for each child. Now they have taken them. Do our sons and daughters have to go through the stress of war, probably give up their health or even their lives? For what? Another 2s. a week for a child on the dole and then, if there is another war, just conscript them in the time to come! They have only their lives to live after a long struggle to live, and at even-time a means test for old age with 38s. 6d. a week for three as maximum pay. I am sorry if I have rambled in setting my case before you but believe me it is exactly as thousands are situated but I have tried to give you some idea of what our life has been and how an increase in the old age pensions, either pension or supplementary, would hearten our sons and daughters in their outlook for the future, something they know they will have been fighting for, something worth while.
I apologise for having read so long a letter, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is a pity that old people should not speak for themselves where they can, and I know of no Member of this House, even on these benches, who could have painted a better picture of what conditions are than the picture which is drawn in that letter.
I have only a few more words to say. This party came into being because it represented itself to the working-classes of this country as having a new outlook on the question of poverty. It owes its rise to power on that. It told the people of this country that it differed from every other political party then and in the past because it put the sufferings of the poor first and would be satisfied with nothing that left their problems unsolved. It said, too, that we alone had a remedy for suffering


and misery of this kind. It went to the poor and said, as the American poet whose lines appear on the statue of Liberty, outside New York harbour, has said,
Give me your tired, your poor, your helpless millions yearning to be free.
They came to us; they believed us. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour sits on the Treasury bench because he has for a long time been saying the things we are trying to get him to practise to day. I am not saying that he has not rendered service; of course he has—

Mr. Bevin: Thank you.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend need not thank me. He will, I hope, not think it necessary to be grateful for an appreciation of what he has done. That, he is entitled to have from his critics and friends alike. Dare my right hon. Friend stand up at that Box and assure this party and the people of the country that the Government would have collapsed if he had insisted that the increase should be 5s. instead of 2s. 6d., if he, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, had gone to the Prime Minister and said—

Mr. Kirkwood: Do not forget the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Silverman: —and said, "We cannot vote for so miserable an increase; if you are not prepared to give more than 3s. 6d., the party to which we belong will divide against the Regulations, and we shall have to vote with them." Does my right hon. Friend really mean to tell the House that the Prime Minister would have said," I am very sorry. We have done our best for two years to maintain a united front in this nation and to fight Fascism, but if you insist on having the 5s. instead of 2s. 6d., I shall have to resign." Is that common sense? Is it not clear that if this party and its representatives in the Government had wanted this enough, they could have got it, and that the responsibility for the old people getting so little lies in the main with this party, which has not carried out the promises on which it has risen to power? I shall go into the Lobby against the Regulations, whatever Amendment is called, or if no Amendment is called. I

appeal to my hon. Friends, if they still stand by the political and social faith which alone justifies their existence as a political party, to do likewise.

Captain Elliston: In spite of the distrust and disappointment expressed by several hon. Members, I believe that the great majority of the House considers that we have reason to be grateful to the Government for the supplementary pension and allowances they are providing, considering the circumstances of the time. We have been reminded in the course of the Debate that, at a moment when we are at one of the greatest crises in our national history, we are finding time to turn aside and discuss the comfort of our old people.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: It is part of the war effort.

Captain Elliston: No doubt it is quite right that we should do so, but I do not think we should reject what is, after all, no more than an interim provision to meet the immediate needs of the old people, which all of us desire to alleviate. The time will come when the greater questions that will follow from the report of Sir William Beveridge will be considered by the House. As was said by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), all these questions should be covered by a single comprehensive scheme, generally acceptable to Members of all parties. There is no Member in the House who is satisfied with the treatment of old age pensioners at this time, but, as a means of tiding over a difficult period in which the Government have so many other matters to consider, I think we should accept the present proposals with a real measure of gratitude at having got such early consideration of the suggestions that were made in the Debate last month. I cannot understand why hon. Members, in connection with old age pensions particularly, should talk about the niggardly or mean spirit which has actuated our policy. I can think of nothing which Parliament has accomplished during the last 30 years that does more credit to it than the steady extension of the pensions system. At the present time, the Exchequer is finding as much as £100,000,000 a year towards pensions, and we are now to vote a further £10,000,000 for the same fund. This is something of which we have reason to be proud, and some-


thing which certainly cannot be described as niggardly. Unfortunately the constant habit of self-disparagement which we cultivate in this country does us a great deal of harm in some countries, especially in the United States of America.

Mr. Kirkwood: It serves us jolly well right if it does.

Captain Elliston: Those who read the American newspapers must have been very much impressed by the way in which, during this war, our best friends in the United States are careful to say that, of course, they cannot condone the social injustices that exist in this country. Nevertheless, in the matter of pensions there is no country in the world that has approached what we have managed to do.

Mr. Kirkwood: In New Zealand they pay £3 a week.

Captain Elliston: It is somewhat disappointing that so far we have heard nothing of the Amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper. There are persons who assure the people that money is no object and that it is a simple matter for the Government by a stroke of the pen to give everything that is asked of them. The proposal for a flat rate of 30s. a week would mean the immediate expenditure of £160,000,000, in addition to what we are already spending on pensions. It is fantastic to suggest in a light-hearted way that such a proposal would be an easy and immediate solution which should be accepted without discussion. We are told that all these things would only call for the expenditure of an amount equal to one or two days' war expenditure. But those who say these things do not tell the people that we are already enduring unprecedented taxation, and that we are piling up a colossal debt that will have to be paid later; they do not tell the people that we have sold or pawned all the securities that we held in foreign countries and which brought in return business orders to this country. Surely in such a matter we should tell the people the whole truth.
I hope and believe that the Beveridge Committee's Report will recommend a great extension of pensions, a contributory scheme that will enable every person in the country to ensure security and safety for the future. Meanwhile, fortunately,

our pensioners are patriotic and sensible people. They are not likely to be deluded by wild promises. They realise that at the present time many thousands of small shopkeepers and professional men are hit as hard as they are and have little margin of income for anything beyond bare necessities. I believe the pensioners will accept in a spirit of gratitude the concessions which the Government have been able to make immediately, and, like the rest of us, look forward to the time when we can achieve a more concerted and better planned scheme for the greater comfort, security, and welfare of the old people. The case for the pensioners is so strong and so tragic that there is no reason to exaggerate it or to ignore some of the lighter aspects of the problem, which are carefully suppressed in a Debate of this sort. Nobody has mentioned that at the present time 750,000 of these pensioners are in full employment. Nobody has mentioned that 1,300,000 of them are receiving an average supplement from the Assistance Board of 9s. 6d. a week. Those are material facts. Nobody has referred to the many hundreds of thousands of pensioners who also have pensions from their former employment. Those are things to be considered. As I have said, the position of the old people is tragic enough, and pitiful cases exist. Many of them are due to the proud reluctance of the old folks to apply for supplementary help from the Assistance Board. Yet, as anyone who has done his duty as a Member of Parliament knows well enough, there are cases that make one's heart bleed; but let us not be too pessimistic in our outlook. We are surely entitled to take some pride in what has been achieved by this country in connection with old. age pensions in a period of barely 30 years during which we have twice had to fight for our very existence.

Mr. Stephen: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and. gallant Member for Black-bum (Captain Ellison), and I want to tell him that many of us would like to have the opportunity of stopping his heart bleeding. If the hon. and gallant Member, and others whose hearts are bleeding, would join with us, we could compel the Government to do justice to these people, and the hon. and gallant Member would then be in the happy position of ridding himself of a heart that causes him so much trouble by bleeding.
I have been very much impressed by speeches from both sides of the House expressing the general dissatisfaction of the House with the proposals of the Government. That dissatisfaction has been expressed by Members belonging to different political parties. One of the things which perturbs me most is that these proposals are characteristic of this Government. A Government which acts in this pettifogging, miserable fashion appears to me to be a Government which will put the country into greater and greater difficulties as time goes on. The policy they are pursuing in their treatment of the old age pensioners is symptomatic of their actions throughout the whole of their administration—try a 2-pounder first, then a 6-pounder; a wee tank and then a big tank. They have led the country from one disaster to another. It is pitiful, with the world in its present condition, that the Government should put us into the position of proclaiming to everyone that the great British nation, with the richest Empire in the world, absolutely refuses to do justice to the old people to whom the country owes so much. The hon. Member talks about difficulties, but let him remember that these are the people who have produced the wealth of this country. It was their toil and their labour which gave the country much of its wealth, and all they ask for now is decent treatment.
I am somewhat bitter when I hear all these tales of sympathy. It reminds me of Dives passing into the house and finding Lazarus at the door. He brought him into his house, and Lazarus told him of all his difficulties. As he told him of his difficulties, Dives wept; his heart bled for Lazarus. He rang the bell for the butler, and when he entered he said, "James, take this poor old man out and put him outside the gates. If I hear any more of his stories, he will break my heart altogether." The Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not put the old people outside the gate, but they give them this half-dollar. It appears to me that a Government with such a mean mind as that, and with such a pitiful outlook on the problems which we are called upon to face, will, unless we get rid of them, plunge the country into absolute disaster. I hope an opportunity will be given for hon. Members to go into the Division Lobby. I see there is an Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for

South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), but for my part I prefer the Amendment which is associated with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I would be prepared even to take the Amendment which, I believe, represents the considered view of the party above the Gangway. Hon. Members expressed some doubt as to whether it will be pressed to a Division, but for my part I hope it will be, moved so that we shall have an opportunity to go into the Lobby and record our dissatisfaction with the Government's policy,
I have a letter from an old age pensioner, and I should like to read one sentence from it, because I think it is illuminating. The pensioner writes:
Personally, I am wondering whether it is the heart or the head of Sir Kingsley Wood which is made of wood.
I never expected much from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, when I think of the record of the Leader of the House, and all the brave speeches he has made in the past, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister of Labour, when such a stalwart supporter is ready to accept this miserable scheme. I am sure there is dissatisfaction with this half-dollar Government's policy of dealing with the old people of the country. The country wants something better for its old people; it wants dignity and comfort for the old people in the winter of their days. I believe that in time to come this Government will suffer for the insult and miserable way in which they are treating the decent people of our country.

Mr. Granville: Like the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), I should like to say how glad we are to see the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) back again in this House, fully recovered, and how glad we are to hear his vigorous voice in defence of the old age pensioners. For my part I am doubly glad, because I shall have an opportunity to go into the Division Lobby with him. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) drew attention to the fact that we had 24 speeches in the Debate on 17th June because hon. Members were brief, and I shall try to follow his lead in my speech to-day. I have discussed this question with my constituents, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have been unable to give us at least 5s. increase instead of 2s. 6d. I be-


lieve that the time has come when the Government should be bold enough to increase the basic rate for all old age pensioners. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) dealt with the means test, and, with him, I hope the time is not far distant when the Government will be able to abolish the means test for old age pensioners.
Reference has been made to speeches made in the country by members of the War Cabinet. When members of the War Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of War Production, make speeches on what will happen after the war, the kind of world we are to have and the social reforms which will be introduced, following the great speech of Mr. Henry Wallace on the century of the common man, and make gramophone records and play them over the B.B.C., appealing to people to make greater efforts in the prosecution of the war because of something which is coming, I say that in my view that sort of holding the carrot before the donkey is not going to cut any ice with the people any longer. If they mean all these things are going to happen, why do they not come here and vote in the House of Commons for a little bit extra for the old age pensioners? The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles at that. I have met my constituents. I do not know if he has met his. Many of these old age pensioners will not be able after the war to enjoy the reforms or the kind of old Etonian model of how to make concessions to the working classes which are put over by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Production. I also regret that the Prime Minister does not take a greater interest in these questions of social reform during the war. Social security is one of the greatest war assets that we have. I believe that the time to start your promises of what you are going to do after the war, if you remember what happened after the last war, is now. The War Cabinet and the Government should convince the people that they mean business. They are wasting their time if they think they are going to play this political chicanery and get away with it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has sat through most of the Debate, is not going to wind up for the Government. I listened to the speech of the Minister of Health, and I think he made

out a reasonable argument in favour of the case he was putting over. But he is not the Minister we have to deal with. We have to deal in the first place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then with the War Cabinet. The Minister of Labour is to reply on behalf of the Government. If they think they will get away with this kind of political tactics, if they think they are going to put Members into the position that they will have to vote for or against an increase and then they will be able to turn round and say, "You voted against the old-age pensioners," they are making a great mistake. They cannot get away with that. If necessary, I shall vote against the Regulations because I know that, if I do not, we shall never get the long-term policy or real increases. I have seen this carrot-before-the-donkey business, and it gets you nowhere. If we do not give a real vote for the old age pensioners to-day on this Motion, we shall never get the rest of the social reform policies which the Foreign Secretary is always offering us. If the Government do not give us a definite undertaking that they will provide an increased scale in the immediate future, I shall vote against these Regulations.
I believe that the only way to get justice and independence for the old people is to vote against the Government on this question. If the House exercised its authority and told the Government it was going to vote against them, we should have an improved scale before the Recess. I am not content to wait till sometime next year, or 1944. Therefore, I make this last appeal to the Minister of Labour, who has to face a difficult situation with his own party. I hope he will not make his old speech about national unity all over again and tell us that he took on his job at the behest of the Prime Minister and is going to see it through. This is part of the job that he took on, and if he will not say that he means to carry through this real social reform during the war, I beg him at least to give us the legitimate reasons why we cannot have an increase in the basic rate of old age pensions now.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I was one of those who in the last Debate urged further consideration for the old age pensioners. Like all other Members, I desire that everything possible


should be done for them. But, listening to to-day's Debate, one would be inclined to overlook that what is happening is that the present proposals of the Government are to hold the gap until we get the Beveridge Report. From some remarks that have been made, and adjectives that have been used, one would be inclined to think that the Government were dealing most ungenerously with the situation.

Mr. Kirkwood: So they are.

Mr. Henderson: That is merely the hon. Member's opinion. The Government are being pressed by many of us to deal with hardships which admittedly exist, and I think that the proposals that they have put before us will remedy the position relative to the pre-war period, and that is all that they could be expected to do until we get the final Report of the Beveridge Committee. All we were entitled to expect was that the old age pensioners during the war should be put in at least as good a position as they were pre-war. The Government have met that situation. We should all like more done for the old age pensioner, but the question is, Are we entitled at this stage to ask for more? I admit that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is entitled—he belongs to the Opposition; he is not a supporter of the National Government—to come forward and press for whatever he wants, but, with the exeception of his party, the rest of the House are theoretically supporters of the National Government, who have decided that they can allocate about £10,000,000 meantime, and I think in the circumstances we must accept that decision. They know how much the country can afford. There are great claims coming forward. There are increased pay for the Services, family allowances, and a great many questions like that. They have made this temporary decision, and, however much I may believe that the old age pensioner is deserving of support, we must accept the decision of our leaders.
I feel disappointed, however, that in some respects they have not been able to meet some of the requests that have been put forward. On this point I disagree with a good many hon. Members opposite. I am particularly disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to modify the needs test so far as the 10s, non-contributory old age pension is concerned. Thrift is a quality

which ought to be encouraged, and it is unfair that the man who has saved for many years should be put in substantially the same position as the man who has not bothered to save. I wish the Chancellor had been able to make some further concession to such a man. I feel that too much emphasis has been laid in the Debate on the purely money side of the problem and that much can be done for the old age pensioner along other lines. The people who are suffering most among old age pensioners are those who are living alone, and I support the views which have been expressed by Members on both sides that more should be done by way of experiment to give, say, a one room and kitchen house with a nurse in attendance for the old people and with communal rooms if they want communal feeding. More could be done for the happiness and welfare of these old people along those lines.
In spite of what my Friends on the opposite side have said, we are passing through a period of great financial stringency. It is all very well for people to say that we are spending an enormous amount every day on the war, but that is an argument which no individual would use about his own affairs. No man would say, "Because I have had to spend £1,000 on operations or illness, therefore I should spend £100 on a radio set when I meant to spend only £10." We must face the situation that after the war the financial position will be a grave one and that we must maintain our social services. It would be unkind to our old people to have to cut down their pensions later on. We must try to build them up gradually. It is often forgotten that more progress has been made in the provision for the old people in the last few years than in 100 years before that. We are gradually building up a good position for them, and if we go too far, we will do more harm than good. The criticism has been made that the Government have been very unfair. The Government have met the desires of Members on all sides that the old age pensioner should be put in as good a position as in pre-war days. The House should accept that and hope that when the Beveridge Report is made and we see what the position is, more can be done. Until then it is unfair to criticise the Government as if they were behaving ungenerously. To make such criticism when they are giving old age pensioners


£10,000,000 a year more in the most expensive war in history is unjust.

Mr. William Brown: My mind goes back to the Debate that we had on this matter on 17th June. On that occasion the House was put into an awkward position. There were three alternatives open to the House. One was to do nothing about old age pensions; the second was to support a request from the Front Bench on this side for an inquiry; and the third was to insist upon an immediate increase for old age pensioners. On that occasion the machinery of the House was so used as to make it impossible for us to take the third course. We were precluded by the circumstance that the Amendment calling for an immediate increase was not called from having the opportunity of saying that an immediate improvement should be effected. We were limited to a choice between doing nothing and supporting the request for an inquiry which was made by the Front Bench on this side. I have an uneasy feeling that the mechanism of Parliament which was used in the sense I have indicated will again be used to-day to prevent a clear expression of the desire of Parliament on the question of the treatment of the old age pensioner. It is true that there is an Amendment on the Paper—the only one, I understand, which is to be called—expressing the view that the Government's proposals are inadequate. I wonder whether the Front Bench on this side will carry this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Davidson: Two to one they will not.

Mr. Brown: The odds are conservative, even for a Scotsman. Let us suppose that the Amendment is not pressed to a Division. In what position is the House left? The position is that in order to express our dissatisfaction with the proposals of the Government we have to vote against any increase in old age pensions. Whenever in the course of my trade union and political life I have found an opponent who had recourse to these tactics, I knew in my soul that sooner or later I would beat him. It is in my soul to-day that if the two Front Benches perpetrate that trick on the House of Commons, it becomes the bounden duty of Members of all parties to vote against them in the Division

Lobby. Any suggestion that we do that because we are against an increase in old age pensions coming from that Bench would merely add to the enormity of the offence they have committed by the character of the proposals they have introduced.
The next section of what I want to say refers to the proposals themselves, and I want to deal first with those who do not figure in them at all. I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day which was not reached at Question Time but to which I have received a written reply. I asked what the Government propose to do
To meet the following types of cases which have not been brought within the supplementary pension provisions now before the House; widows under 60 years of age in receipt of 10s. widows' pension, plus children's allowances, who, because of their family responsibilities, cannot seek radical readjustment of their lives which a return to single woman's working status implies.
There is one category of people who are left completely untouched by even the proposals brought forward to-day. The Second category in my Question are:
widows under 60 years of age who because of ill health or long-established domestic environment are unfitted for return to industry.
That is a second category left completely untouched by the proposals of the Government. Then there is the third category:
persons under 70 years of age who are not entitled to Contributory Old Age Pension who by reason of advancing years or indifferent health are unable to secure employment.
The reply which I had to that Question says:
Such cases as my hon. Friend refers to will no doubt be the subject of consideration in the course of the discussion in the House to-day. Certain provision is already made so that public assistance is given if the means of the persons concerned are inadequate for their support.
I invite the House to consider the two sentences of that reply. One sentence says they can already have something subject to a means test, and the second that there will no doubt be some reference to them to-day. I have before me a note of the speech made by the Minister of Hearth when in 1940 he introduced proposals dealing with the subject we are discussing to-day, and I want to read one sentence of the speech then made by the ex-Member for Rugby:
It has often been suggested in this House and elsewhere that poor people should not at the end of their lives have to suffer the indignity


of going before a public assistance committee every week or so to obtain the wherewithal to live. With the passing of this Bill that will cease.

Mr. E. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. He is quite wrong. It was not I.

Mr. W. Brown: . If I have attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the sins of his predecessors that is only part of the doctrine of continuous collective responsibility for which the Government stands.

Mr. E. Brown: It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. W. Brown: After that statement by the then Minister of Health we have the present Chancellor of the Exchequer telling me in his reply to-day that people in the categories I have described can still only get help subject to a means test, but that doubtless some reference will be made to them to-day. In other words, three categories of people within the scope of the consideration of this House on 17th June are left so far utterly untouched by the proposals of the Government, and left within the scope of the means test, which according to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor disappeared in 1940.
I turn now to the people who are covered by the Government's proposals and are given 2s. 6d. extra, again subject to a means test, because that is what it really means. The standard rate is left completely unchanged. I try to attend the Debates in this House, and I have made notes during the day of some of the reasons advanced in defence of this beggarly proposal of 2s. 6d. One hon. Member opposite made it the burden of his speech that if we took our courage in both hands and gave 5s. all in one go then by 1960 we should be "broke." The argument rested upon assumptions which are demonstrably false. The first assumption underlying it was that the production of wealth in Britain must remain static between now and 1960, and secondly, that it would be as unjustly distributed as it is at the present time. The first assumption is wrong in the light of past experience, and the second is determined to be wrong by our own will here in this country. Then he made the point that in 1960 we should have an extraordinary increase in the number of old people and a decrease in the number of children. He forgot that five minutes earlier he had said that there

was a balancing of liabilities, and the deduction from what he said was that, if we had to spend more on old age pensions, by the same token we should be spending less on children's allowances.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: We are aiming at the same thing. It is only a matter of method. The hon. Member's method is by State dole and mine is by contributory insurance.

Mr. Brown: That might conceivably be an argument when we come to deal with a post-war scheme of contributory insurance, but it is obviously utterly irrelevant to a Debate on the present system of old age pensions. Then it has been said that this is only an interim measure, but surely that is no reason why it should not be an adequate interim measure, and the issue between hon. Members to-day is whether the 2s. 6d. is adequate or not.
Before I sit down I wish to address a few remarks first to the Government side of the House and then to this side of the House, and I beg that hon. Members will hear me in patience, even if they disagree. The root cause of our failure in this war—I believe this to be an important observation [Laughter]. Yes, and as the news comes through from the various war fronts you may have reason to regard it as a serious observation. I say that the principal contributory factors in the series of defeats we have suffered in the war are, first that we had only one front rank man in Britain who saw the need for preparing this country for war and that even he did not see the essential conditions for conducting totalitarian war. The first condition for conducting totalitarian war is a united people, and we see how much unity there is in Britain as soon as we touch a really economic issue in this House. The second factor is that we must have a people with a dynamic of social hope. I say that there is not a piece of legislation that has been introduced by this Coalition Government since it was formed in 1940, which has done anything whatever to contribute the dynamic of social hope to the conduct of this war. The social hope of the men in the factories does not come from the Government Benches, but from Russia. If that hope fails them because the same mental inadequacy is brought to bear on the problems of the war as has been exhibited


here, this country, believe me, will go through something which no side in this House has hitherto taken into its contemplation.
One word to the Opposition side of the House. I believe that hon. Members there acquiesced in the creation of this so-called National Government. It is not a National Government but a coalition of party forces. I believe that hon. Members acquiesced in its creation from good and honourable motives, believing that they were thereby contributing to the business of trying to win the war. I ask hon. Members to look back on their experience since the Government was formed. Is there a thing the Government has done which has justified the surrender of independence entailed by that acquiescence? There is not a social problem—take mines, pensions and man-power—connected with the war, that has come up within the last year or two upon which hon. Members have had terms which they would have dreamed of accepting if they were negotiating with employers in similar circumstances.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It is all bunkum.

Mr. Brown: Was the decision on mines bunkum?

Mr. Griffiths: Go and ask the miners' executive. They will tell the hon. Member. They know more about it than he does.

Mr. Brown: That may be so, but the acid test will be whether we get the coal and perhaps we had better wait for that.

Mr. Griffiths: We will get the coal. We know more about coal than the hon. Member does.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) must be allowed to make his speech without these continual interruptions.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, Sir. I was led away.

Mr. Griffiths: We were not going to stand for that.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member has made his point. Perhaps he will let me get back to my speech. On these Benches is a party which owed its great number of votes to its claim that it was different from

the Liberal and Tory parties. It put the Liberal party and Tory party in one opposition camp and staked out its own claim to votes. Here is the most obvious, simple and justified issue upon which Members of the Labour party can take their stand. When we come to divide, as we shall, I urge them not to allow themselves to be deterred from voting on the merits of the case by any Parliamentary manipulation of procedure, or by any argument that, if they vote against the Government, they will weaken it. The Government do not want weakening, they want destroying. I hope that Members will vote on this issue according to their consciences and, having done that, will justify themselves to their constituents.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "be approved," and to add
cannot, in the absence of any specific assurance of further Measures to be introduced in the next Session, be accepted as an adequate step towards meeting the difficulties of old age pensioners and widows.
In accordance with the arrangement that was announced by Mr. Deputy-Speaker at the beginning of this Debate, I move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). The proposals of the Government have not satisfied the House as a whole. They do not satisfy the social conscience of the country as a solution of the problem of dealing with old age pensions. In every part of this House, including the Government Benches, the imperfections of our old age pensions and our social services generally are recognised. The justification put forward for these proposals is not that they are adequate or are a solution of our difficulties, but that they are an interim step and a stop-gap. That is all very well as far as it goes, but we have not had from the Government any promise of a definite and specific kind that when the Beveridge Report is published and the Government have had time to consider the matter, a permanent solution will be offered and that a Measure—complicated, it may be—dealing with the whole structure, will be introduced.
It is for the purpose of eliciting that promise from the Government that the Amendment has been put down. I have been asked whether it is the intention of


the Labour Party to press this Amendment to a Division. I am prepared to give to that question a perfectly direct and concise answer. The Amendment has been put down to secure from the Government a specific pledge that, next Session, Measures of legislation will be introduced to deal with this question; if the final speaker on the Government Benches, announcing the Government policy, is now prepared to give that pledge, this Amendment will be withdrawn. [Laughter.] Certainly. We shall be straight with the House. This Amendment says that, in default of a pledge from the Government of Measures next Session to deal with this question, we are opposed to this proposal, but if, now, the speaker for the Government gives that pledge, we shall not go to a Division against the Government. That is inherent in the terms of the Amendment. If the Government fail to give that pledge and promise that Measures will be introduced next Session, we shall press this Amendment to a Division.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): To suggest that I have been disappointed with this Debate is an understatement. I was hoping that, having regard to the issues that must be settled in this country, and settled on a broad, large, comprehensive basis, Members of the House would take an opportunity, especially in view of their disappointment with certain of these proposals, to be more constructive and contributory than they have been. I have been a long time in constructive work. I know that denunciation is the easiest thing to indulge in; I know how easy it is to denounce a Government and to enter it as a supporter of its leader, and how cheap it is to say, "The rest of the Government are pygmies, but I would willingly be in it if I had the chance." The Government does consist of party representatives, and I make no apology, and never shall, for being a life-long member of the Labour Party and the Socialist movement, and one who has never left it. I have stood by it through all its vicissitudes, when it has been down and when it has been up—more often down—so that I would ask those who lecture me to-day on being a representative of a party, to look back at their own acrobatic careers before criticising other people.
As I said, I had been hoping that the Debate would have been constructive. Let me turn to what the House asked. It has been suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very adroit. I do not think he is cleverer than I am. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is slicker."] I do not think he is more adroit, and I shall not submit to the painful suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the Assistance Board, got a figure, and led me up the garden with it. Oh, no. I am replying to this Debate to-day because I agree with this figure.

Mr. Stephen: Shame.

Mr. Bevin: Listen to my argument before you shout "Shame." Shouting "Shame" in a Debate is the conduct of a heckler, not of a statesman. [Interruption.] Do not tempt me with interruptions. When I am asked whether it affects the Government, I say "Yes." I have never in my life gone back on an agreement, not even with an opponent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, but you have made some bad ones.

Mr. Bevin: My record in making agreements is one of the finest in the country and has been the basis of great industrial developments. In this business it was not a question of the Conservative Members, or the leader of the Liberal party, or anybody else imposing their will. The facts of the case were examined and gone into very carefully. A decision was arrived at and on that decision I stand, for good or ill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) was good enough to say that I had done some good things in the Government. Let those who say that I am wrong decide in their own conscience what action they will take, and let me decide in my own conscience what action I will take, because on whatever Committee I serve, in whatever circumstances, when I have said, "yes," I stand by it. On that, as a religious principle, I will never go back. I lay it down as fundamental in this case.
Let us return to what the House asked. The House asked that we should examine the problem of old age pensions, and many contributions were made to the discussion. It would not, I think, be inappropriate if I gave a little retrospect of my connection with this problem. It was I, in the Trades Union Congress, who


wrote the pamphlet asking for a State superannuation scheme. I will not be accused of not trying to do my best. It was I who, on behalf of the Trades Union Congress, as the ex-Minister of Health will remember, raised the question with the Government before it was debated in this House, and tried to negotiate a new State superannuation scheme. Instead of what I then thought was a proper scheme, this House carried a Bill introducing supplementary pensions. I venture to suggest that the results have been costly to the State, and that it is evident that it has not given final satisfaction. That is the position the Government find themselves in now.
Therefore, we could have taken one of two steps. We could have delayed this, if we had gone into all the wider considerations, until the House reassembles next Session. But we tried to interpret honestly the desire of hon. Members that something should be done immediately. Then, for whom should it be done? The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—and I appreciate his sincerity in this and I have no criticism to offer of him—said that we ought to have decided to raise the whole question of a general advance for pensioners. Let me put him one or two considerations, because I have great respect for his judgment, and I think that if he were in my position he would have come to the same conclusion. Basic pensioners now at work number something like 784,000. As Minister of Labour I have been asked thousands of times, since I have had to direct them back to work, what is the position of a pensioner returning to work? I think the Labour party at least will agree with me that I have been right in saying that they must be paid the full rate of wages. I ask hon. Members, assuming that I send a man back to work at a full rate of wages, and that he and his wife have a pound a week pension, if I then ask this House to supplement that pension, will there not be an outcry from the other men in the country? I am perfectly certain there will be. We know all about friendly societies and benefits and all the rest of it, and that is an issue which would be very difficult.
Then there are—I cannot be precise as to the figure—many thousands of people who were employed under the Municipal

Corporations (Superannuation) Act; many civil servants, many who were in employers' pension schemes, and other kinds of pension arrangements. Happily such things have grown in the last 20 years. Could I have come to the House and suggested, on the basis of conditions arising out of the war, an addition to their State pensions? How often have I heard criticism of the amount of pension paid to policemen? [An HON. MEMBER: "He gets the pension."] He does not get a supplementary pension.

Mr. A. Bevan: He gets superannuation from the State.

Mr. Bevin: Please do not interrupt. I am suggesting that he gets a good pension, but he may have contributed to the State pension, and may be getting £1 a week on top of it. Under the proposal put to me to-day, in spite of his good pension and in spite of the additional £I a week, it is suggested that I should give him 5s. on top of that. [Interruption.] I suggest quite frankly that questions would pour in from my hon. Friends opposite if we did such a thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all very well to say "No" to-day, but I know what hon. Members will do to-morrow. Then there is another large class which has property and various other sources of income which it was found impracticable to add into arrangements of this character without careful consideration. A general advance was therefore rejected. I am putting my cards on the table. These were the considerations.
Secondly, we got to the capital business. With the capital business we have sympathy, but what is capital in this respect? When I came to examine the matter from my point of view, I found in the Act a number of disregards. In the case of a person with money, that is, cash or property, that is simple, but suppose a balance is worked out in the scheme between a person with property and a person who is drawing benefit of one kind or another. If I am a trade unionist and have paid for 40 years into my society and I get a superannuation payment, that is as much savings as if I am drawing rent from a house or dividend from a cooperative bank, and that is a disregard in the Act, and it is impossible to assess that on the same footing as the disregard on capital. Therefore in the time at our


disposal—I am speaking purely on the question of time, not of principle—we found it impossible. Thus it was not the simple issue of the 1s. for the £25 business. There were the other disregards that had to be taken into account. It involved legislation and could not therefore be dealt with in the time at our disposal before the Adjournment. Then we said, "If those problems are such that we cannot solve them, should we decline to do anything? "We decided to put to the Assistance Board the question of what we could deal with at this moment. Therefore we came to the amounts, if I may put it in a more precise way. We decided, or at least as a result of the investigation the Board reached a decision which we accepted quite properly. Therefore the Board is not being brought into the discussion, because the Government have accepted responsibility; we hide behind no one. I think that is the proper thing to do with any statutory authority. Therefore, any dispute you have is with the Government, not with the Board. Let me make that perfectly clear.
Take first of all the coal allowance. Hon. Members in the House to-day have dealt with the question of a differential pension between the single and the double household. You cannot decide that in a minute. There will be a dozen things about that immediately it is raised. Many arguments will be advanced on both sides, and it needs a careful balance as to what is to be done. But at least we did one thing. Under the old arrangements there was a system of paying 1s. 6d. for coal allowance for the single person. We could not quite see how a single person could burn half a fire, so we decided that whether it was a single or a double—man and wife—household, the coal allowance should be the same, but the effect of it is to give to the single person a slight addition more than the man and wife who are living together. The effect in money, taking the additional month, and taking the increase in the coal allowance for the year, is about 3s. 1d. a week for single persons as against what he was entitled to previously, spread over the year. Having regard to the circumstances which had arisen—and I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility, and with the Debate of the House before me—I felt that for the individual person, as an interim arrangement, that was a reasonable advance, and I do not go back on it, and I

do not apologise for it whatever anybody may say about it. For the double household—man and wife—the increase, spread over the year, works out to about 5s. 4d. a week. Throughout the country generally that, in effect, is what it means.
We have been asked, What about the future? Perhaps I ought not to notice nods of the head and approval, but I noticed to-day when it was suggested that workmen's compensation and all the other problems have to be brought into review, and an hon. Member suggested it should be treated separately, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) approved that it should be treated separately. I suggest that in the final analysis you cannot treat it separately. If a national scheme of social security is to be worked out, all these facts have to be brought into account, whether one likes it or not.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the Minister does not wish to misrepresent even a nod. I certainly agree, and said so in my speech, that when a full reconstruction scheme such as is being considered by the Beveridge Committee is being dealt with, all these things may have to be considered together, but the problem to-day is what to do with the existing generation of old age pensioners while the final scheme is being worked out.

Mr. Bevin: With all respect, the hon. Member who was speaking was referring to the future scheme, and so am I. One of the great problems associated with this problem of widows' pensions arises out of workmen's compensation. There are many widows caused as the result of accidents in this country. It is a difficult problem indeed, and it cannot be avoided. I make this pronouncement. As a longstanding trade union official, I hate the lump-sum settlement. I detest it. I have had to sit down time after time with insurance companies and lawyers and all those people and decide the fate of a man when I have not had the medical knowledge—nor had the doctor—as to what the future would bring. I have seen men come back afterwards, broken men with the money gone. I am reminded of the docker in Liverpool who after a terrible accident went to draw his money. When he received it he turned it over in his hand. The lawyer said," Are you not


satisfied, Paddy? "The man replied," I was just wondering who had the accident." Believe me when I say how true that has been of workmen's compensation in this country. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) will cheer too, if he has any humanity in him, considering what is involved.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose—

Mr. Bevin: I am not going to give way.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to give way? His Tory friends are cheering him: how long will they do that?

Mr. Bevin: I do not mind how long the Tories cheer, and how long the hon. Member hates. I know my friends behind me, and I know the hon. Member. Now let me get on with the case. I am not ashamed of what I have done in the Government in this matter. I want to lead on to this second stage. The Government are determined to try to solve this question of the social security scheme. Any steps that are taken in future must be of such a character that they will weave themselves into the permanent structure. That does not mean that we must wait for the permanent structure to be completed. Someone said that it would involve long negotiation with vested interests of all kinds. Certain branches of it will; certain branches of it will not. Those branches that will not, involve the two points which have been raised in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). The first of those two points is the case of the widows under 60. The Act of 1940, which was largely due to the negotiations between the Trades Union Congress and the Government at that time, brought the age down to 60. That was a great step, considering the difficulties that existed before.
There is, however, another section of the community, which is very small, but which must be taken into account in relation to this question of widows under 60. That section is the spinsters. Many of these women who have been in industry or in offices, when they find themselves in distress or ill or unable to work have far greater difficulty in getting back into

employment again than almost anybody else. Exactly how that—[Interruption], I am making a pronouncement on behalf of the Government, and I ask hon. Members to listen, because this is a declaration of policy. Apart from all the repartee, nothing is dearer to the hearts of the people from the Labour benches who are serving in this Government than the question of getting a solution of this problem. We want a solution; but we want the right solution if we can get it. On the question of the widows and orphans—and we do not rule out the question of the spinsters, and the difficulties that arise in connection therewith—the Government will give further consideration to the pensioners who need assistance, or, if there is delays they will give assistance beyond their pensions. The position will be reviewed and considered at the earliest possible moment.
Let me put on the records the considered opinion of the Government, and I have supplemented that by the words' I have used about spinsters. It is the form of words which sets forth not a new declaration of the Government, but, in more precise terms, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the last Debate. I repeat that it is the intention of the Government to make reasonable provision for old age pensioners. Improvements have already been made and the present Regulations embody further marked improvements. The Amendment asks for an assurance that further measures will be introduced next Session. It is expected that the subject will again come up for consideration later in the year when the Beveridge Report on Social Services is available. And note these words—we shall, in any event, give further consideration to the position of pensioners, including widows under 60 who need assistance beyond their pensions. I can add the assurance that attention will again be directed to the way in which capital resources are to be calculated for the purpose of assistance. I do not think that on behalf of the Government I can make a more explicit and careful statement, setting forth policy, than that and it is our intention to pursue it with vigour.
We must get a basis upon which to work. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) that we must consolidate these services into some ordered form. I want to say to him that that does not mean, if


I may put it in more precise terms than I did before, that we shall wait until we have got a complete ordered form. But the schemes we are going to try to work out, on the basis of the Report, will be designed with a knowledge of what we have to fit in to the complete picture when consolidation is reached. That raises very large considerations as to whether it has to be contributory, or whether it should be part contributory, and how much contributions will take up. We must also have regard to other Motions carried in the House recently. The House, I believe, unanimously declared that we should consider family allowances. There is agitation going on—and I have nothing to say about it, but the Government cannot be unmindful of it—for improvements in soldiers' pay and allowances. We have to take into account the variety of claims that the public and the House are making upon the Government at the present time.
If these claims were translated now into a contributory scheme—and I am merely giving this as an illustration—so far as I can estimate, it would mean a tripartite contribution of between 25s. and 30s. per week per employee in industry. Money has to be found by contributions or by taxation and the heavy drain on various forms of income in the country does affect the budgetary position. I know it is said we can spend money on war. That is true but, after all, that is living on capital and it is no use trying to deal with social security which has to be permanent unless you design it on the basis of your possible national permanent income. That is the only calculation by which you can arrive at a correct judgment. It is rather difficult to take a fictitious basis in war but notwithstanding that and with the knowledge, and the returns and everything else before us, we intend to make a big effort when the investigation and consolidation proposals are before us, to see how far we can bring to fruition the work which has been going on in this House since 1908.
Lastly, mention has been made of the multifarious inquirers and I think I ought to report to the House that as a result of the passing of the Determination of Needs Act, which has removed much of the criticism made in this House—and many of to-day's quotations were entirely out of date—together with the different methods employed by the Assistance

Board the number of officials has been reduced in the last 12 months by over 5,000, or nearly 30 per cent. of the total employed. That is a very big reduction. I and the Government would like to see inquiries cut down still more. It used to be said of this nation—wrongly, I think-that it was "A nation on the dole." What should have been said was "The nation and the citizen on the basis of a contract, guaranteeing social security." If we can get on that footing then, more and more, it will be dealt with on right lines but unforeseen things must still, I fear, be subject to some kind of welfare scheme which will have to be worked out, for dealing with the sick and with incalculable cases. Therefore, with perfect honesty and sincerity I say that this is a reasonable percentage advance to tide over immediate difficulties. Having given a pledge as to future policy, I honestly feel that the Government are entitled to the unanimous support of the House for the work they have done.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I do not intend to enter into the wider ranges of this Debate in which I think a little too much heat has been engendered I do not intend to follow that course. However, I would like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) that due notice will be taken of his lecture to my party. I come to what is rather more serious. Those for whom I speak—and, indeed, a very large number of other hon. Members, as the speeches in the Debate have shown—are gravely concerned about the plight of the unemployed people, although that matter has not been debated. They are gravely concerned about it, although the discussion has been about the aged people and widows. I have heard speeches which I did not expect to hear from Members of the Conservative party.
Let it be admitted that, since the war broke out, more has been done for the aged and the widows than was done in many years of peace. But it still remains true, and many Members in all parties are very perturbed by it, that, while the new proposals are a substantial advance on what has already been conceded, they are not sufficient. I realise that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said some very hard things about me. Indeed, I inaugurated the Beveridge Survey; but when it is suggested that


nothing can be done until the whole great plan of social security has been completely laid down—which is what the hon. Member suggested—that, of course, is not true. No legislature in the world has ever passed an Act so comprehensive and so voluminous as this new social security code will involve. There may be many Acts of Parliament required, although there may be a single general plan behind it and a common inspiration to abolish want in adversity. Therefore, it is possible to do something as soon as the Beveridge Report is issued, which may be within the next two or three months, something which will not in any way make it difficult to implement the whole general plan, but which will be a method, without prejudicing the future, of doing something more for the aged and for the widows.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that what we do in war-time ought to be of a character that can be woven into the general and more permanent structure. I do not like the term "final solution," because there are no final solutions in social problems. We have moved this Amendment—and it was not done without very great thought—in which we say that we cannot, in the absence of any specific assurance of further measures to be introduced in the next Session, regard the proposals as being an adequate step towards meeting the dif ficulties of old age pensioners and widows. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have given some specific assurance. I am very sorry that he has not. I am thinking of two particular points. First, the question of capital savings. There I realise my right hon. Friend's case about the man who is a superannuated member of a trade union. Of course, they are savings. But the point which has been put specifically by my hon. Friends is the case of the small savings of the old age pensioner who might also be a super annuated member of a trade union or of an approved society. I had hoped we might have had an assurance that in the coming Session that problem might have been dealt with. It is not an enormous problem, It really does not involve—

Mr. Bevin: I am so sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought I made it quite clear that these two problems would be dealt with in the coming Session. I

did not intend to convey that I would complete the whole scheme in the coming Session.

Mr. Greenwood: That, if I may say so, brings me to the end of my speech. If we have this specific assurance, which the right hon. Gentleman has now made, that these two problems will be the subject matter of immediate legislation or early legislation in the new Session, then in that case I would, of course, be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Interruption.] If, and I am saying it to my hon. Friends, I get that specific assurance, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "We object."] My hon. Friends may object. They are like the hon. Member for Rugby, who is not adding to the dignity of this House. But, on the understanding which my right hon. Friend has given, in that case I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Shinwell: I should not have detained hon. Members had it not been for the unwarranted and unjustifiable attack made on myself by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us see exactly where we are. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the subject of lump-sum payments in workmen's compensation, and he rightly and properly took exception to that sys tem, as indeed this party has done for many years. When he did so, it will be observed that hon. Members opposite applauded. I merely ventured to inter pose to draw attention to the fact, for it is a fact, that the lump-sum payments, to which my right hon. Friend takes exception, embodied in workmen's compensation legislation were imposed by the Conservative party represented on the opposite benches. That is all I did. Why my right hon. Friend should take exception to that and immediately make a venomous attack on myself by suggesting that he would prefer the friendship of members of the Tory party to myself—

Mr. Bevin: Let the hon. Member quote me correctly, whatever else he does. I said I paid no concern to the cheers, either of my friends at the back, or to the hon. Member's hate. If I was wrong in the heat of the moment in saying that, I say quite frankly that I am quite prepared to withdraw and not carry on any personal feelings.

Mr. Shinwell: In the circumstances, since my right hon. Friend has so graciously withdrawn the observations he made, I can do no more than leave myself in the hands of the House. [Interrwption.] Hon. Members must not suppose that they can intimidate me by cries, whether articulate or inarticulate. If I have anything to say to the House, as long as Mr. Speaker does not think I am transgressing the Rules of Order, I shall address hon. Members. I regret that this incident should have occurred. My right hon. Friend and I have often been at loggerheads and, if he wishes to continue the conflict into a Debate of this character, that is a matter for him to decide. I have no desire to do so, and I leave it there.
To come to the substance of the Debate, the Leader of the Labour party has just intimated that, on the statement made by the Government, he is prepared to withdraw the Amendment officially submitted by the Labour party. My right hon. Friend is the Leader of the Labour party, but he is not the whole of the Labour party. I refuse to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and we shall take it to a Division. But I shall give my reasons. I mean no animosity towards him. It is merely a difference of politics, a difference of tactics, if you like, a difference of political strategy—call it whart you will. We are told that these are specific assurances about beneficial legislation affecting old age pensioners and widows which will be submitted in the autumn. That is next Session. That is next November. Any legislation that comes before the House—I do not care what hon. Members say to the country—must be based, if I interpret my right hon. Friend's speech aright, on the recommendations embodied in the Beveridge Report. At any rate, they cannot be ignored. It is impossible for the Government to come forward with proposals which are unrelated to the Beveridge Report. Are we to assume that, when that report is presented to them, the Government will not require to give it mature consideration? Of course they will, and indeed we could not deny the right of the Government to give those recommendations full and mature consideration. They are likely to be comprehensive in character. They will present what will be regarded as a long-term policy if it is aiming at a final solution, at any rate aiming at a full solution, and conse-

quently it will take a long time before the Government are in a position to present considered legislation.
In the meantime what are the old age pensioners-to do? They are being fobbed off—let us speak plainly and bluntly—by the presentation of Regulations embodying a payment of half-a-crown in the case of the single person and 5s. in the case of a couple. My right hon. Friend said that this had been analysed and it had been discovered, taking the year round, what with one kind of allowance and another—the winter allowance and the coal allowance—it would amount to 3s. 1d. a week in the case of a single person and he says to the country, to the wider Labour movement and to the old age pensioners that in his opinion that is a reasonable advance. If we know the opinions of the old age pensioners—and we know them as well as any member of the Government—and if we consider the opinions of the people of this country, 3s. 1d.—I take the Government figure, and it is the highest possible figure—is not regarded as a reasonable advance taking into account all the circumstances. Does anyone suggest that 5s. 4d. in the case of a married couple meets the increase in the cost of living? Even if it does, having regard to the increase in wages in every industry surely no one will say that these advances are reasonable in the circumstances? What we are doing in these Regulations is for a long time to come—I do not care about these assurances—condemning the old age pensioners to a condition of poverty. We cannot accept that.
Let us consider what the central issue before the House is. We have had all this up before at our own party meetings. We have been considering this for some time, and I want to tell the House, what the House ought to know, that this party has unanimously decided that the allowances should be doubled. The party was right in its judgment. My right hon. Friend raised the bogy—it is a bogy in relation to this Debate—of an increase in the basic rate. It is true it was raised by certain hon. Members, but it was not the considered opinion of this party because we said that an increase in the basic rate must be an integral part of the long-term policy. We said the same about widows' pensions. We concentrated, therefore, on the simple issue of what in the opinion of the House was an adequate amount to pay to the old age pensioner by way of


supplementary assistance. Let it not be forgotten that when we are dealing with these Regulations we are not considering a flat increase which is to be advanced to everybody. It is not certain that every person will get the advance that is indicated in the Regulations. It depends on circumstances. The supplementary allowance has to take into account the circumstances of every person in the family.
Let us sweep aside all this verbiage about the future. The right hon. Gentle man opposite has said a great many things outside about social security and a mini mum wage in future, and he has been supported by the Lord Privy Seal who makes brave speeches about the new world that is to come. I ask both of them and the Labour and Socialist Members of the Government to give us a few examples now of the brave new world—not in the dim and distant future, but here and now. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has given me my case. He rightly dealt with the finance of this subject. It is a very difficult thing, he said, to deal with this question of an increase to the old age pensioners because we are living on our capital. Is that cry to be raised already when we are engaged in discussing the architecture of the new world? If it is to be raised now in the middle of the war we can depend on it that it will be raised when we come to the consideration of a long-term policy. Let us, there fore, tell the soldiers who are fighting, the airmen and our gallant seamen that all this talk about the brave new world, all the fine phrases and the high-falutin' sentiments are pure poppycock, pure window-dressing in order to bulldose once more the people who are making sacrifices, as they were bulldosed, chloroformed and misled in the last war. It is not good enough and it is time that that was said. One further point. We have been told, and it is a most remark able thing that we should be told, that if we press this to a Division we may break this down. Talk about intimidation. Every time we raise our voice, every time we try to secure advances, we are told that what we are doing may lead to the break-up of the Government. I say that this solitary domestic issue is not related to the war effort except in respect of morale and—

Sir Joseph Lamb: Who said that?

Mr. Shinwell: If I told the hon. Member he would not understand.

Sir J. Lamb: If the hon. Member makes a statement he ought to be prepared to substantiate it.

Mr. Shinwell: If anybody gets up and speaks with feeling he is immediately told—[Interruption.] Are we to under stand that the Minister of Labour is the only person imbued with deep feeling about social questions? Are we to under stand—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] You cannot force me to get on in that way. You are making a very great error if you think so. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order. The hon. Member did courteously give way to me, but I think he did not answer my question.

Mr. Shinwell: I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who jeered and sneered, that I admit that I have been speaking with deep feeling. He is frequently telling the House, much too frequently, I think, of his great exploits on social issues in this Government. He tells us of all the great social advances for which he has been responsible. I accept it, and I assume that he is obsessed with a deep and passionate sincerity for the well-being of the working classes, but surely he can give other people the same credit.

Mr. Bevin: Sure.

Mr. Shinwell: Then why jeer and sneer—

Mr. Bevin: I only joined in fraternal greetings.

Mr. Shinwell: —unless it is to unfold the venom that has obsessed the right hon. Gentleman against everybody who has dared to criticise his precious Government? That is the position. After all, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it all his own way. If he attacks he must be prepared to be attacked. I am not complaining about being attacked. All I ask is the right to reply, and I am availing myself of the right to reply and I intend to do so in the future. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself—he has tried it for the last 25 years—that I am the last person in the world to be intimidated. He cannot


play that sort of game with me. Very well; now what I say is that the simple issue before us is this, and I put it to the members of my own party. Are they prepared to agree with the Government, first, that the advances recommended are satisfactory and adequate? They can decide that by their vote. If they say the advances are adequate, I accept what they say, but I cannot agree with them and I shall vote accordingly, and I shall justify my position in the country and in particular in my constituency. The second point I put to them is: Are they satisfied with the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on behalf of the Government in relation to new and beneficial legislation on this issue in the next Session? How can they say they are? They know they are being fobbed off once more, just as they were fobbed off by the famous formula which the right hon. Gentleman presented on the subject of taking over industry in this country. It is an old trick. I fancy it will not work so effectively this time.
I do not believe that a vote against the Government means the break-up of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it would? "] I am glad that hon. Members on the Government Benches agree that no one in his senses would say such a thing. That interruption makes it unnecessary for me to indulge in further criticism. I do not believe that a vote against the Government on this domestic issue would break up the Government. On the other hand, I say that, if the Labour party are determined and adamant, if they get their feet well dug in and speak plainly to the Government, and in particular to the Prime Minister—who might take a little more interest in these domestic issues because they affect morale and probably the organisation of the war effort—and if they decide that the Government must change their policy, the Government will not quarrel unduly with them. The Government will recognise the will of the House and will acquiesce. I say that also to other Members in this House who are equally anxious with the Labour party to do the right thing by the old age pensioners. The issue is simple. It is not a question of a long-term policy and of legislation, but of what we can afford to give the old age pensioners now. I say that this great country can afford to give its old age pensioners something

better than is offered in these Regulations, and I hope that the House will decide accordingly by its vote.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I suggest to hon. Members that as we have had a long Debate and as all points of view have been expressed—very forcibly, perhaps—hon. Members might be prepared now to arrive at a decision.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Buchanan: The cry of "Divide" does not annoy me. As an old Parliamentarian I have many times indulged in it and I have no criticism of hon. Members for indulging in it against me now. I rise only to say a word to two, because, whatever faults I may have, I have taken some interest in this subject. The Minister of Labour addressed the House on this issue, but much of his speech was irrelevant to the subject that we are discussing. No one would deny that the question of workmen's compensation is terribly important, but that is not what we are discussing. We are not even discussing the widest questions of the abolition of the means test or an increase in the basic rate. A simple issue is before us: whether the proposed Government Regulations are satisfactory or not. The right hon. Gentleman may bring in other issues, but that is the main issue before us.
As an old Parliamentarian, may I say a word to the right hon. Gentleman? It will not be unfair to him, but although I am much younger in years than he is, I would commend this remark to him: I think he is overdoing it. That is not meant nastily. I think he is overdoing two things. One is his constant claim, "I have done it." It is a constant claim, although he may disagree with that view. In every speech he says, "I have altered the legislation here and there." The second is the claim that because of his long and very honourable connection with the Labour movement he can justify anything he likes in this House. Let me just say to him that I remember a man with an (equally long record in the Labour movement and, if I may say so, most of it a very honourable record, who used to take the same line of defence. [Interruption.] No,


it was not Ramsay MacDonald, but he was one. He had a tremendously honourable record. The other is J. H. Thomas. I say to the Minister of Labour that he must not justify proposals on these matters in that way in the House. We, are a business assembly to some extent, and we ask him to justify proposals on their merits.
I want to say one or two words about the merits of this proposal. What are they? The merits of the case are that we are increasing the single man's allowance; the basic rate is 10s., plus 9s. 6d., and we are increasing the total of 19s. 6d. to 22s., plus a cost of living increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. We are increasing the basic scale for one human being to 22s. I put it to the right hon. gentleman that the point about increases bears no relationship to the increase in wages. Every Socialist always said that the increase did not matter; it was what you had before the increase that mattered. In the old days we used to oppose men with £3,000 a year having an increase, because we thought they already had enough. What matters is what they are receiving now. The proposals which the Minister of Labour is defending are to the effect that a man should live on 22s. a week. It may be said that some may get an increase. I do not deny it, but take the case of the person with a low rent of 5s. or 6s. a week. That 22s. is the figure they have to live on. That is the sum with which they have to buy everything in life. [An HON. MEMBER: "It cannot be done."] Take the case of the married couple. Their increased allowance I think amounts to about 29s. 6d. plus 5s. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 32s."] No, it is only 32s. in certain cases. But what is the test? The Poor Law authority. May I say to my Labour colleagues that frequently Poor Law authorities manned by Tories as well as those manned by our own people—the Poor Law authority in Glasgow is the town council—are paying a destitution scale which is higher than the amount proposed. The scale paid in Glasgow for the most destitute person is higher. In Lanark, as some of my Lanarkshire colleagues know, authorities, not manned by Labour people but by our opponents, are paying scales which are higher than we are proposing to-day.
It is asked that the Amendment should be withdrawn. Why? It is not that we

have a single guarantee about the minimum rate, because they have to go on until next Session. We have not a guarantee about capital, about the widow, but about the minimum rate, the destitution rates to be given next winter, nothing is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman wants to carry on this war victoriously. He came into the Government for that; that was his prime object. I say frankly to him that if there is one issue dominating the minds of the people whether in the London suburb, in the North of Scotland, or a Welsh valley, it is the treatment of our aged people. An ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow, who I think is as enthusiastic about winning the war as my right hon. Friend, and who, like him, has to stand a great deal of criticism, said in discussing the other day the point that we ought to raise it to at least a minimum of 25s. "The cost will be £10,000,000. Any Government that was wise would buy the morale of the people for at least £10,000,000". [Interruption]. I think you can buy morale. If morale cannot be bought, what was the defence of the miners' proposals? It was that the £4 3s. would give the morale to get our coal.
The Labour party are keen on this. Whatever differences may be submitted down there, whatever differences there may be between someone else and myself, the one thing I am certain of is that the mass of our party want something more done. Recently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the House supported in this House coal rationing. A Tory committee smashed coal rationing. He ran away. Old age pensioners say to me, "The Tories can do that. Why cannot we get at least some small thing in return for your support?" Surely this is not asking too much. I say to the House and my Friends on the other side that by this Measure you are sentencing people for some considerable time to come to a standard of life which I think it is impossible to defend. There has been talk about the balancing of the nation's income and the effect on war-time policy. In the days before the right hon. Gentleman came to this House we had only one answer given to us for this pension not being decent. Never was an answer given to us that the amount was sufficient. The one answer every time was its cost. That is not said now, but most of those who have decided this policy to-day gave us that answer.


But I did not make ray observation in that sense. What I said was that the only defence was the cost. The old age pensioner now says, "You spend so much more on the war, so really do not give us the excuse about money any more. It was not true before the war. How likely is it to be true to-day?" To-day this issue is one which I and, I am sure, many others must feel to be of terrible social consequence, and I say to the House of Commons that if they do not deal with it the House of Commons itself will have fallen somewhat in prestige. I am certain that the great speeches that you will make about post-war work will be treated with a great deal of cynicism, because people will not believe you. If a man cannot do a small thing now—a thing so petty that I am almost ashamed of how little we are asking—there is little chance of him doing big things in the future.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. A. Bevan: (seated and covered): Are you accepting the Motion, Sir? I know that it is against the procedure of the House to raise any question on a Ruling of that sort, but I would submit that a very large portion of to-day has been occupied with another matter, which

Division No. 19.]
AYES.



Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brooke, H.
Denville, Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh).
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Drewe, C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Butcher, Lieut. H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)


Assheton, R.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Ede, J. C.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Channon, H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Beattie, F.
Cluse, W. S.
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Colegate, W. A.
Elliston, Captain G. S.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Critchley, A.
Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph


Benson, G.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Evans, D. O, (Cardigan)


Blair, Sir R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Fildes, Sir H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Culverwell, C. T.
Foot, D. M.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fox, Flight Lieut. Sir G. W. G.


Bower Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Gibson, Sir C. G.

was put on the Order Paper by the Government. This Debate started quite late. There is a large number of Members who have not been able to speak, and it is an offence against the House for such a Motion to be moved by the Chief Whip. I submit, with all respect, that you ought not in the circumstances to have accepted the Motion.

Mr. Buchanan: (seated and covered): I understand that after I had finished speaking a Member on the Government Front Bench moved, "That the Question be now put." I do not know whether you accepted that Motion or not, Sir. I would like you to give us some guidance as to whether you have done so, and whether you intend now to put the Motion. I have a second point of Order. I know that you have the prerogative of accepting or refusing this Motion. I ask whether, in view of the tremendous national importance of this issue, you would not reconsider your decision, bearing in mind that Members of this House have so much interest in the subject.

Mr. Speaker: I accepted the Motion, and put the Question.

Mr. Gallaehcr: (seated and covered): I want to put a point of Order. I am told that I am entitled to put a point of Order. My point of Order is this. As I was on my feet before the Chief Whip got up to move the Closure, is there anything that can be done to change the Ruling that was given?

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 77.

Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Goldie, N. B.
Llewellin, Col, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Salt, E. W.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Sandys, E. D.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Grimston, R. V.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
MeKie, J. H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Groves, T. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
McNeil, H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley).
Mander, G. le M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hannah, I. C.
Marlowe, Major A.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Haslam, Henry
Molson, Capt. A. H. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sutclifle, H.


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Morrison, Capt. J. G. (Salisbury)
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Nall, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hepworth, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Hewlett, T. H.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Tomlinson, G.


Hicks, E. G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Touche, G. C.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Oliver, G. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Paling, W.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Isaacs, G. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Peake, O.
Westwood, J.


Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Peat, C. U.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


John, W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Pownall, Lt.-Col, Sir Assheton
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Johnstone, H. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pym, L. R.
Willink, H. U.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Woodburn, A.


King-Hall, Commander, W. S. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Law, R. K.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)



Lawson, J. J.
Robertson, Rt. Hn, Sir M. A. (M'ham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leach, W.
Ross Taylor, W.
Mr. Boulton and Captain


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rowlands, G.
McEwen.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Bowles, F. G.
Horabin, T. L.
Riley, B.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Cape, T.
Kendall, W. D.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Collindridge, F.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lipson, D. L.
Stokes, R. R.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E.
Maxton, J.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Messer, F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foster, W.
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S.(Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Granville, E. L.
Mort, D. L.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Sloan.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Division No. 20.]
AYES.



Adams, D. (Consett)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Assheton, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Ammon, C. G.
Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.

The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 63.

Barnes, A. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Groves, T. E.
Peat, C. U.


Beattie, F.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beochman, N. A.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Harvey, T. E.
Pym, L. R.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Henry
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Hayday, A.
Radford, E. A.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riekards, G. W.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Ridley, G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Hepworth, J.
Riley, B.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Hewlett, T. H.
Ritson, J.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Hicks, E. G.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Brooklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Brooke, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Butcher, Lieut. H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Salt, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Isaacs, G. A.
Sandys, E. D.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Channon, H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hn. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnstone, H. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Colegate, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Cooke, J. D. (Hemmersmith, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Culverwell, C. T.
Law, R. K.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lawson, J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Leach, W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Denville, Alfred
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Thurtle, E.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Tomlinson, G.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Touche, G. C.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macmilian, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
McNeil, H.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mander, G. Ie M.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Marlowe, Major A.
West wood, J.


Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph
Mathers, B.
White, Sir Dymoke (Farcham)


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Whiteiey W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fildes, Sir H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Willink, H. U.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)
Morrison, Capt. J. G. (Salisbury)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W)


Gledhill, G.
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, A.


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Nall, Sir J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Goldie, N. B.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. A. Young and Captain


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Paling, W.
McEwen.




NOES.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
Dunn, E.


Barr, J.
Critchley, A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bellenger, F. J.
Dagger, G.
Foster, W.


Bevan, A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gallacher, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Granville, E. L.


Cape, T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Collindridge, F.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Hardie, Agnes







Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
MacLaren, A.
Silverman, S. S.


Horabin, T. L.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sorenson, R. W.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.


Kendall, W. D.
Messer, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Kirby, B. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Kirkwood, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, J. J.


Leonard, W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Lindsay, K. M.
Pearson, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Lipson, D. L.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, Capt, A. Cunningham (St. M.)



Mack, J. D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKinlay, A. S.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Sloan.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1942, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st July, be approved.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Resolved,
That the draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Sub-section (3) of Section 38 and Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st July, be approved."—[Mr. Ernest Bevin.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

Mr. Denman (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Loans (Postponement of Repayment) Measure, 1942, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Stephen: I was a little unfortunate, Sir, in not catch-your eye earlier. I desired to ask if the Government had not a statement to make, in view of the very big vote against them, as to what they intended to do and whether they were going to take the same course as was taken by a previous Government and we might expect their resignation. The figures were much the same.

Mr. Maxton: We have seen a somewhat extraordinary spectacle when over 60 supporters of the Government have enrolled themselves against the Government proposal. May I ask if the Leader of the House is going to make a statement informing the House as to their intention?

Mr. Speaker: The Motion before the House has to do with the Church of England Assembly.

Mr. Maxton: I have no desire to impede that very important Measure. Perhaps I shall be in Order afterwards.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.